Dan Himmelfarb is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Washington DC office. He is a member of the firm’s Supreme Court & Appellate practice, which for more than ten straight years has been ranked in one of the top two tiers nationally by Chambers USA and The Legal 500 United States.
Dan has filed more than 200 merits and petition-stage briefs in the US Supreme Court and scores of briefs in other federal and state appellate courts throughout the country. He has argued 50 cases in 12 different appellate courts, including 12 in the US Supreme Court and 14 in the Second Circuit. Dan has particular experience in the areas of torts, contracts, administrative law, criminal law, constitutional law and statutory interpretation.
He has argued appeals involving the Class Action Fairness Act, the Clean Air Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Federal Employers Liability Act, the National Labor Relations Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Before joining Mayer Brown in 2007, Dan served for five years as an Assistant US Attorney in the Southern District of New York and then for five years as an Assistant to the US Solicitor General. In 2005, he received the US Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Award.
Before joining the Department of Justice, Dan was in private practice for three years in New York. Prior to that, he had judicial clerkships with Judge J. Michael Luttig of the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas of the US Supreme Court.
Dan is a co-author of the tenth edition of Supreme Court Practice,published by BNA Books in 2013, and the first and second editions of Federal Appellate Practice, published by BNA Books in 2008 and 2013.
- Yale Law School, JD
- Princeton University, AB, magna cum laude
- District of Columbia
- New York
- US Supreme Court
- US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
- US District Court for the Southern District of New York
- US District Court for the District of Columbia
- Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, 866 F.3d 451 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (briefed and argued for petitioner Arkema): The DC Circuit held that EPA lacks authority under Title VI of the Clean Air Act to ban substances that are not replacing ozone-depleting substances. The case was featured in Law360’s “Biggest Environmental Rulings of 2017.”
- Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 2016) (argued for appellee Lockheed Martin): In the first appellate decision to address the issue after the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, the Second Circuit held that Connecticut law does not subject a company to the general jurisdiction of Connecticut courts based solely on the company’s registration to do business in the state.
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Peirce, No. 13-2235 (4th Cir. 2014) (briefed and argued for appellee CSX): After briefing and oral argument, appellants, two lawyers and a doctor, withdrew their appeal of a jury verdict in favor of CSX finding that the lawyers and doctor violated the federal RICO statute and committed common-law fraud by manufacturing and filing fraudulent asbestos claims against CSX.
- Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund, 571 U.S. 177 (2014) (briefed and argued for petitioners Ray Haluch Gravel Co. et al.): The US Supreme Court unanimously held that a decision leaving unresolved a request for contractual attorney’s fees is subject to immediate appeal.
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Gilkison, 406 F. App’x 723 (4th Cir. 2010) (briefed and argued for appellant CSX): The Fourth Circuit reinstated a suit, dismissed by the district court, alleging that lawyers and a doctor violated the federal RICO statute and committed common-law fraud by manufacturing and filing fraudulent asbestos claims against CSX.
- Hensley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 310 S.W.3d 824 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009)(briefed and argued for appellant CSX): On remand from the US Supreme Court, the Tennessee Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s failure to give an appropriate “fear of cancer” instruction was not harmless error and reversed a $5 million jury verdict.
Rate : $$$$