Paul Hughes

Practice Areas

Partner Paul Hughes is co-chair of the Firm’s Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Group. He briefs and argues complex appeals, and he develops legal strategy for trial litigation.

An experienced appellate lawyer, Paul has argued nine times at the US Supreme Court, including in February, March, October, and December 2019, March 2020, and January 2021. With more than 50 arguments, Paul has appeared before en banc sittings of the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, panels of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, DC, and Federal Circuits, and several state appellate courts. Paul also frequently argues in state and federal trial courts across the country.

Paul is also a visiting clinical lecturer in law at the Yale Law School, where he co-directs Yale’s Supreme Court Advocacy Clinic.

In listing Paul in its nationwide rating of appellate lawyers, Chambers USA (2021) notes that he “has a flourishing reputation for his appellate work,” that he “thinks at least five steps ahead of others,” and that “his integrity and experience shined through everything he did or said.” In ranking Paul as a “Leading Lawyer” in appellate practice, The Legal 500 (2021) describes Paul as “exceptionally professional, effective, and easy to work with,” an “intellectually impressive and skilled advocate,” and it explains that he “demonstrates a surprisingly high policy awareness that sets him apart in Washington.”

View more at: https://www.mwe.com/people/hughes-paul-w/

Professional Memberships

National Police Accountability Project, board member

Work Highlights

In the Supreme Court, won a decision extending judicial review to all aspects of administrative agency decision-making over Convention Against Torture Claims. (Nasrallah v. Barr, 2020)

In the Supreme Court, won a sweeping victory providing broad judicial review over administrative agency action in the immigration context. (Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr & Ovalles v. Barr, 2020)

In the Supreme Court, secured a unanimous victory, with divided reasoning, confirming sharp limitations on the scope of agency authority (Kisor v. Wilkie, 2019)