Hashim M.Mooppan (Hash)

Partner

Washington + 1.202.879.3744

Hashim Mooppan is an experienced appellate litigator and legal strategist, widely regarded for his forceful advocacy, rigorous briefs, extensive knowledge, and innovative lawyering. Recognized by Chambers USA as a leading appellate lawyer nationwide, Hash has argued five cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and dozens more in the lower federal courts, including nine en banc arguments in six different circuit courts of appeals. A former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, Hash has held leadership positions in the two premier appellate offices in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), as Counselor to the Solicitor General and Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Appellate Staff.

Hash has personally worked on more than 50 Supreme Court merits cases, nearly 100 court of appeals cases, and dozens of appellate matters involving requests for discretionary review or emergency relief. He has developed a broad range of substantive experience concerning federal constitutional, statutory, and regulatory litigation, from both an offensive and defensive perspective. He has litigated many significant cases involving, among other things, the separation of powers, the Commerce Clause, the First Amendment, the Takings Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, and federal statutes governing antitrust, civil rights, voting rights, immigration, and jurisdiction.

Hash was invited by the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States to provide written testimony about the operation of the Court's emergency docket, and his testimony was featured in the Commission's Report.

Expérience

  • School board members prevail in U.S. Supreme Court on whether public officials’ use of personal social media accounts constitutes state action subject to First Amendment constraintsOn behalf of two municipal school board members, Jones Day won a landmark victory in the U.S. Supreme Court on the important question of when the First Amendment restricts the ability of government officials to exclude users from personal social-media accounts that the officials use to communicate with the public about their jobs.
  • Major public company obtains injunction against unconstitutional administrative adjudications within Department of JusticeOn behalf of a major public company, Jones Day obtained a precedent-setting injunction to stop administrative proceedings within DOJ that were being conducted by an administrative law judge ("ALJ") who is unconstitutionally shielded from the President's supervision.
  • Trade associations present argument in Supreme Court that CFPB's unique funding scheme is unconstitutionalOn behalf of two trade associations of consumer lenders subject to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's 2017 Payday Lending Rule, Jones Day urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a Fifth Circuit decision holding that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding mechanism is unconstitutional.
  • Boeing obtains total victory in California Environmental Quality Act appealOn behalf of The Boeing Company, Jones Day prevailed in a CEQA dispute before the California Court of Appeal.
  • Major public company moves to dismiss Federal Trade Commission enforcement suit for lack of constitutional authorityJones Day moved to dismiss an FTC suit against a major public company on the ground that the FTC lacks constitutional authority to sue in federal court for monetary or injunctive relief.
  • R.J. Reynolds prevails in U.S. Supreme Court on geographic scope of Civil RICOJones Day successfully represented the petitioners in a major U.S. Supreme Court decision restricting the extraterritorial application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
  • N.C. State Dental Board presents oral argument in U.S. Supreme Court on antitrust state-action exemptionJones Day presented oral argument on behalf of the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners in a major case concerning the scope of the antitrust state-action exemption.
  • R.J. Reynolds successfully challenges constitutionality of graphic cigarette warning labelsThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed a District Court ruling in favor of Jones Day client R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's proposed graphic warning labels on cigarette packs are unconstitutional.
  • National Federation of Independent Business prevails in constitutional challenge to individual health-insurance mandateJones Day represented the National Federation of Independent Business ("NFIB") and other private parties in the landmark legal challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, based on the Act's mandate that legally compelled virtually every American to obtain health insurance.
  • Kinston candidates prevail in D.C. Circuit appeal of right to challenge Section 5 of Voting Rights ActA unanimous D.C. Circuit panel agreed with Jones Day that the district court had erroneously dismissed a suit by candidates from Kinston, N.C., challenging the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
  • Experience Prior To Rejoining Jones Day

    Collins v. Yellen/Mnuchin (S. Ct.): argued successfully in defense of statutory validity of multibillion dollar agreement between FHFA and Treasury and in opposition to unconstitutional restriction on President's authority to remove FHFA director.

    Fulton v. Philadelphia (S. Ct.): argued successfully that municipal government's failure to accommodate religious practices of catholic foster care services organization violated Free Exercise Clause.

    Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (S. Ct.): argued successfully that claim for nominal damages satisfies Article III standing requirements.

    House Judiciary Committee v. McGahn (D.C. Cir. en banc): argued in defense of landmark panel-stage victory that a chamber of Congress lacks authority to sue an Executive Branch official to enforce a legislative subpoena.

    In re: Trump (4th Cir. en banc): argued in defense of unprecedented panel-stage victory that mandamus relief was available to reverse district court's refusal to certify interlocutory appeal in novel suit seeking to enforce the Emoluments Clauses against the President.

    California v. Azar (9th Cir. en banc): argued successfully in defense of HHS rule restricting promotion of abortion within Title X program.

    Hernandez v. Mesa (5th Cir. en banc): argued successfully that implied Bivens damages action is not available against federal law enforcement officer engaged in cross-border shooting.

    Planned Parenthood v. Hodges/Himes (6th Cir. en banc): argued successfully in defense of Ohio law restricting state funding for organizations that perform abortions.

    PHH Corp. v. CFPB (D.C. Cir. en banc): argued in opposition to unconstitutional restriction on President's authority to remove CFPB Director.

    International Refugee Assistance Program v. Trump (4th Cir. en banc): argued in defense of presidential proclamation restricting travel from certain countries deemed to present security risks.

    Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. (2nd Cir. en banc): argued that Title VII's ban on sex discrimination does not encompass sexual orientation discrimination.

    Guedes v. ATF (D.C. Cir.): argued successfully in defense of designation of Acting Attorney General under Federal Vacancies Reform Act.

    Regents of Univ. of California v. U.S. DHS (9th Cir.): argued in defense of DHS rescission of DACA deferred-action policy.

    Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (S. Ct.): briefed successfully that union-access regulation constituted per se physical taking.

    Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe (S. Ct.): briefed successfully that aiding-and-abetting claim against domestic corporation under Alien Tort Statute was impermissibly extraterritorial.

    Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (S. Ct.): briefed successfully that certain Arizona voting regulations do not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania (S. Ct.): briefed successfully that HHS had statutory authority under Affordable Care Act to exempt conscientious objectors from contraception mandate.

    Kisor v. Wilkie (S. Ct.): briefed successfully that "Auer deference" doctrine should be significantly curtailed but retained in its core applications.

    American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump (D.C. Cir.): briefed successfully that challenge to presidential executive order concerning federal sector unions must be channeled through Federal Labor Relations Authority.

    In re: Federal Bureau of Prisons Execution Protocol Cases et al. (S. Ct.; D.C. Cir.; et al.): supervised briefing successfully defending against myriad civil suits that challenged 13 federal executions on various constitutional and statutory grounds.

    • September 20, 2023
      Anticipating the Supreme Court's October Term 2023, Georgetown Law Supreme Court Institute Press Briefing
    • September 21, 2022
      Anticipating the Supreme Court's October Term 2022, Georgetown Law Supreme Court Institute Press Briefing
    • May 25, 2022
      An Interbranch Role: Congress versus the Executive, Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State
    • January 31, 2022
      The Administrative State Goes to Court: A "Halftime" Analysis of the Supreme Court's Term, Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State
    • June 22, 2021
      Supreme Court End-of-Term Media Briefing, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center
    • September 22, 2016
      Anticipating the Supreme Court's October Term 2016: What to Expect, Georgetown Supreme Court Institute Annual Press Briefing
    • April 19, 2016
      The Voting Rights Act after Shelby County v. Holder; National Association of Attorneys General, 2016 Southern Region Meeting
    • October 7, 2015
      Keynote Address at Tri-Regulator Symposium: North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission
    • September 22, 2015
      Anticipating the Supreme Court's October Term 2015: What to Expect, Georgetown Supreme Court Institute Annual Press Briefing
    • May 1, 2015
      American Health Lawyers Association: The Supreme Court's Ruling on Antitrust Immunity for State Regulatory Boards: North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC and Its Implications
    • April 1, 2015
      State and Local Legal Center: What's Next after North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners?
    • March 20, 2015
      Administrative Law Review Symposium, Antitrust: At the Intersection of Private and Public Regulation; NC Bd. of Dental Examiners v. FTC
    • February 26, 2015
      Reaction by Counsel to the Decision in NC State Board v. FTC, ABA Section of Antitrust Law
    • September 23, 2014
      Anticipating the Supreme Court's October Term 2014: What to Expect, Georgetown Supreme Court Institute Annual Press Briefing
    • February 26, 2014
      Georgetown Supreme Court Institute Mock Moot Court: Religious Objections to Contraception Coverage, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby
    • November 12, 2013
      Thinking Outside the Box: Creative Responses to Difficult Situations on Appeals; Edward Coke Appellate Inn of Court Panel
    • February 26, 2013
      Georgetown Supreme Court Institute Panel Discussion of Shelby County v. Holder

    Speaking Engagements Prior to Rejoining Jones Day

    May 20, 2021
    Is Faithful Execution Being Devoured by Factional Execution?, Federalist Society Panel
    Online Event


    March 26, 2021
    When the Government Changes Sides in Ongoing Litigation, Federalist Society Panel
    Teleforum


    December 17, 2020
    The Shadow Docket / Emergent Litigation at the Supreme Court, Edward Coke Appellate Inn of Court Panel, Washington, D.C.


    November 2, 2018
    Nationwide Injunctions: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, ABA Administrative Law Conference Panel, Washington, D.C.