Andrew Pincus

Partner

Mayer Brown LLP

Andrew Pincus

Partner

Mayer Brown LLP

Andrew Pincus is a partner in Mayer Brown LLP resident in Washington, D.C.  His practice focuses on Supreme Court and appellate litigation.

Andy has argued 29 cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, including Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela and Frank v. Gaos in the October 2018 Term; as well as his recent victories in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. (2017); Kindred Nursing Home Centers Limited Partnership v. Clark (2017); and Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016). Law360 ranked Andy’s victory in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2011), as the most important Supreme Court class action decision of the last 15 years.

Andy appears regularly before federal and state appellate courts and federal district courts. His practice also includes written and oral advocacy before Congress, other legislative bodies, and regulatory agencies regarding a variety of policy and legal issues.

 A former Assistant to the Solicitor General in the United States Department of Justice (1984-1988), Andy co-founded and serves as co-director of the Yale Law School’s Supreme Court Advocacy Clinic (2006-present), which provides pro bono representation in 10-15 Supreme Court cases each year.

While serving as General Counsel of the United States Department of Commerce (1997-2000), Andy had principal responsibility for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. He also participated in formulation of policy concerning privacy, domain name management, taxation of electronic commerce, export controls, international trade, and consumer protection.

Andy is a graduate of Yale College and Columbia Law School, where he was a Notes & Comments Editor of the Columbia Law Review.  He served as Law Clerk to the Honorable Harold H. Greene, United States District Court for the District of Columbia (1981-1982).

A person listed as a contributor has spoken or otherwise participated in Regulatory Transparency Project events, publications, or multimedia presentations. A person's appearance on the website does not imply an endorsement or relationship between the person and the Regulatory Transparency Project. The Regulatory Transparency Project takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All expressions of opinion by a contributor are those of the contributor.

Contributions

Deep Dive Episode 96 – New York’s “Rent Stabilization” Law

March 20, 2020

Does New York’s “rent stabilization” law violate the federal Constitution? Richard Epstein and Andrew Pincus discuss.

 

Listen to this podcast
Skip to content