Kannon Shanmugam is a partner focusing on Supreme Court and appellate litigation.

Mr. Shanmugam joined the firm in 2008 after serving as an Assistant to the Solicitor General in the Department of Justice.  In that capacity, he argued eight cases on behalf of the United States before the Supreme Court, winning six.  Among his victories, he successfully argued Tellabs v. Makor Rights, which concerned the standard for pleading state of mind in a federal securities-fraud action; Weyerhaeuser v. Ross-Simmons, which involved the standard for a claim of predatory bidding under the federal antitrust laws; and Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, which concerned the availability of a claim for damages by a federal prisoner for lost personal property.  In addition, he was responsible for preparing the briefs of the United States in a number of other significant cases, including Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, a case involving the availability of “scheme liability” under the federal securities laws; United States v. Atlantic Research, a case concerning the availability of actions for reimbursement of environmental cleanup costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and Arthur Andersen v. United States, an appeal by Arthur Andersen from its conviction for obstruction of justice in connection with the collapse of Enron.

Before joining the Justice Department, Mr. Shanmugam was an associate at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, where he worked with former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Kenneth W. Starr on a range of appellate matters, including a number of matters in the Supreme Court.  Most notably, he was responsible for preparing the briefs on behalf of Senator Mitch McConnell and other challengers to the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law in McConnell v. FEC.  He also represented the plaintiffs in Granholm v. Heald, a lawsuit challenging a state law prohibiting the direct shipment of wine to consumers.

Mr. Shanmugam was born in Lawrence, Kansas, the son of Indian immigrants.  He grew up in Kansas and was co-valedictorian of his class at Lawrence High School.  He went to Harvard at age 16, where he majored in classics and graduated summa cum laude.  After being selected as a Marshall Scholar, he obtained a master’s degree in classics from the University of Oxford.  He then returned to Harvard Law School and graduated magna cum laude in 1998; there, he served as executive editor of the Harvard Law Review and argued the case for the winning side in the moot court competition.  After law school, he served as a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court and Judge J. Michael Luttig on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

In a 2007 feature on “Up and Coming Lawyers” who are “on the fast track to making a significant impact on the profession,” Lawyers USA described Mr. Shanmugam as “a Supreme Court whiz kid.”  In 2006, The Topeka Capital-Journal named him one of its “Distinguished Kansans of the Year,” citing his work “on the front lines of justice.”  Along with partners Kevin Downey, Joe Petrosinelli, and Jim Tanner, he was named one of “40 Top Lawyers Under 40” in 2006 by Washingtonian magazine.  In 2005, Washingtonian listed him as one of its “20 People to Watch.”  He was also featured by the Associated Press in a story on “The Supreme Court of Tomorrow.”

Mr. Shanmugam has spoken extensively on the Supreme Court and legal issues.  He currently serves on the boards of trustees of the American Inns of Court and the Association of Marshall Scholars.  He has served as secretary of the Edward Coke Appellate Inn of Court and as a member of the executive committee of the ABA Council of Appellate Lawyers.  He has also worked as a volunteer teacher and assistant coach of the quiz-bowl team at Anacostia High School in Washington.

Cases argued by Kannon Shanmugam in the Supreme Court:

Riley v. Kennedy, 128 S. Ct. 1970 (2008)

Whether a change precipitated by a state-court decision must be precleared under the Voting Rights Act.

United States v. Rodriquez, 128 S. Ct. 1783 (2008)

Whether, in determining whether a prior offense qualifies as a predicate offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act, a court should take into account the fact that the defendant was subject to a higher sentence as a repeat offender.

Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 128 S. Ct. 831 (2008)

Whether the Federal Tort Claims Act permits a federal prisoner to sue for damages for lost personal property.

Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 127 S. Ct. 2499 (2007)

What a plaintiff must plead in a federal securities-fraud action in order to satisfy the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act’s requirement of a “strong inference” of the necessary state of mind.

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., 549 U.S. 312 (2007)

What a plaintiff must prove in order to establish a claim of predatory bidding under the federal antitrust laws.

Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006)

Whether a constitutional challenge to a method of execution must be brought in a petition for habeas corpus.

Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 (2006)

Whether a defendant who has been convicted of capital murder has a constitutional right to present alibi evidence at sentencing.

Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005)

Whether officers conducting a search of a house may detain an occupant of the house in handcuffs and question her about her immigration status.