Clients and peers trust David to deliver creative strategy, rigorous legal analysis, and compelling arguments in the most complicated matters, regardless of the subject or forum—from the complaint to dispositive motions to appeal and the Supreme Court, as well as in federal agency proceedings. 

David’s work often involves administrative, constitutional, or antitrust issues. For example, he has handled matters regarding the regulation of transportation fuel (EPA), cryptocurrency/digital assets (Departments of Treasury and Labor), post-grant patent review (PTO), spectrum licensing (FCC), institutional educational assistance (Department of Veterans Affairs), mineral leasing (Bureau of Land Management), and foreign banking organizations (Federal Reserve Bank).  He has handled matters raising constitutional questions concerning the Commerce Clause, the appointment of executive officers, congressional investigations, property takings, defamation and free speech, and jury trial rights, among others.  

Additionally, David has extensive experience with antitrust litigation, including recently helping secure a landmark acquittal of a corporation charged with conspiring to divide a labor market, and defending the NCAA in a series of lawsuits claiming its amateurism rules reflected a price-fixing conspiracy.

David previously served in the Office of Legal Counsel at the US Department of Justice, where he provided legal advice to the White House and federal agencies on diverse statutory and constitutional issues, including cybersecurity, congressional oversight, and the First Amendment.


  • David has played a role in myriad civil, administrative, and criminal proceedings on behalf of individuals, companies, and trade associations, including:

    Regulatory Litigation

    • Representing technology companies challenging rule of Patent Trial & Appeal Board governing institution of inter partes review of patents: Apple v. Vidal (Fed. Cir.; N.D. Cal.)
    • Representing renewable-fuel trade association challenging and/or defending EPA’s annual Renewable Fuel Standard rules: Americans for Clean Energy v. EPA (D.C. Cir.); Alon Refining v. EPA (D.C. Cir.); American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. EPA (D.C. Cir.); Growth Energy v. EPA (D.C. Cir.); RFS Power Coalition v. EPA (D.C. Cir.); Sinclair Wyoming v. EPA (D.C. Cir.)
    • Representing renewable-fuel trade association challenging or defending EPA decisions on petitions for “small refinery” exemptions under Renewable Fuel Standard: Sinclair Wyoming v. EPA (D.C. Cir.); Renewable Fuels Ass’n v. EPA (D.C. Cir.); HollyFrontier Cheyenne v. EPA (S. Ct., amicus)
    • Representing renewable-fuel trade association defending EPA action waiving requirement for selling E15 fuel year-round: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. EPA (D.C. Cir.)
    • Representing ethanol producer challenging EPA policy for approving cellulosic biofuel for purposes of Renewable Fuel Standard and challenging EPA decision denying producer’s application under that policy: POET v. EPA (D.C. Cir.); POET v. EPA (8th Cir.)
    • Representing automaker defending EPA actions establishing greenhouse gas emissions standards: Ohio v. EPA (D.C. Cir.); Texas v. EPA (D.C. Cir.)
    • Amicus brief for clearing house arguing that appointment of judges on Patent Trial and Appeal Board was constitutional: US v. Arthrex (S. Ct.)
    • Amicus brief for power suppliers and distributors defending FERC regulation of wholesale “demand response” in electricity market: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Ass’n (S. Ct.)

    Antitrust litigation

    • Representing NCAA against claims that its student-athlete compensation limits violated antitrust law: O’Bannon v. NCAA (9th Cir.); Alston v. NCAA (S. Ct.; 9th Cir.)
    • Representing company against criminal antitrust (market division) charges: United States v. DaVita (D. Colo.)
    • Representing technology company on appeal from dismissal of antitrust suit involving aggregation of patents: Intel v. Fortress Investment (9th Cir.)
    • Representing movie theater chain against claims that its distribution agreements violated antitrust law: Starlight Cinemas v. Regal Entertainment (2d. Cir.); Cinema Village Cinemart v. Regal Entertainment (9th. Cir.)


    • Representing technology company challenging jury verdict in patent infringement case: Optis Cellular Tech. v. Apple (Fed. Cir.)
    • Representing medical device maker asserting preemption defense against tort claim: Wildman v. Medtronic (5th Cir.)
    • Representing construction company challenging availability of punitive damages in maritime tort suit: Dutra Group v. Batterton (S. Ct.)
    • Representing congressional committee against claim by former president that committee’s demand for his tax returns exceeded committee’s authority and violated the constitutional separation of powers: House Committee on Ways and Means v. Trump (D.C. Cir.)
    • Representing NCAA against claim that student-athletes are “employees” under Fair Labor Standards Act: Dawson v. NCAA (9th Cir.)
    • Representing individual convicted of honest services fraud: United States v. Tanner (2d Cir.)
    • Representing individual claiming Florida death penalty system deprived him of Sixth Amendment right to jury: Hurst v. Florida (S. Ct.)
    • Representing individual claiming sentence violated Armed Career Criminal Act: Mathis v. United States (S. Ct.)
    • Representing individual claiming that adverse tort verdict violated her First Amendment right to speech: Hurchalla v. Lake Point (Fla. Ct. App.)
    • Representing university against claim that it breached its fiduciary duty under ERISA: Sacerdote v. NYU (2d Cir.)

    Administrative and congressional proceedings

    • EPA – annually prepared comments for renewable-fuel trade association on proposed Renewable Fuel Standard rule under Clean Air Act 
    • Departments of the Treasury and Labor – prepared comments for trade association on proposed policies regarding regulation of crypto assets and platforms
    • Department of Veterans Affairs – responded to proposed enforcement action against educational institution
    • Patent & Trademark Office – prepared comment for technology company on possible rules governing institution of inter partes review of patents
    • Federal Reserve Bank – prepared legal analysis for foreign investment company addressing possible applicability of Bank Holding Company Act and International Banking Act
    • Congress – advised trade association on responding to information request from oversight committee, including issues regarding congressional investigative powers and First Amendment

Insights & News


  • Education

    • JD, New York University School of Law, 2004

      magna cum laude graduation awards for: ranking 2nd in class; outstanding overall scholarship; distinguished scholarship in federal courts & civil procedure
    • AB, Philosophy, Harvard University, 1999

      cum laude John Harvard Award
  • Admissions

    • District of Columbia

    • New York

  • Clerkships

    • The Hon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 2007 - 2008