The principal areas in which the firm serves its State clients are energy law, antitrust law, natural resources and land management law, unclaimed property, and issues of State taxation arising under the federal Constitution.

Oil Overcharge Refund Proceedings:

The most significant series of complex cases in which the firm represented multiple State clients was the oil overcharge refund litigation, comprising more than a hundred separate proceedings before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, U.S. District Courts in the District of Columbia, Kansas, Delaware, and Texas, the Office of Hearings and Appeals of the U.S. Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  As a result of that litigation the States recovered over four billion dollars, of which our clients' share was over a billion dollars.

Among the important separate cases in the oil overcharge litigation area are:

Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Edwards, 669 F.2d 717 (TECA 1982)(key portion of opinion taken in toto from firm's amicus brief for State of California). In this and other early cases, the firm played a leading role in resisting the federal government's effort to keep crude oil refunds for itself, and in laying the foundation for the eventual refund of billions of dollars to the States as restitution for consumer-citizens.

United States v. Exxon Corp., 773 F.2d 1240 (TECA 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1105 (1986), affirming 561 F.Supp. 816 (D.D.C. 1983).  In Exxon, over two billion dollars was awarded to the States, believed to be the single largest civil judgment at that time to have become final.  The firm represented the largest single group of State claimants, whose recoveries were over six hundred million dollars.

In re Dept. of Energy Stripper Well Exemption Lit., 578 F. Supp. 586 (D.Kan. 1983), on certification sub nom. Exxon Corp. v. United States Dept. of Energy, 744 F.2d 98 (TECA), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1077, 105 S. Ct. 576, 83 L.Ed.2d 515 (1984); see also 653 F. Supp. 108 (D. Kan. 1986)(approving settlement).  In Stripper, the firm played a major role at every stage of the case, especially in presenting the States' economic evidence in the key evidentiary hearings before the Office of Hearings and Appeals of the U.S. Department of Energy, which led to the settlement of the litigation. The firm was a leading participant, on behalf of the States, in the complex negotiations to obtain a favorable settlement.  The firm represented the largest single group of State claimants in the litigation, whose recoveries have exceeded four hundred million dollars.

Oil and Gas Royalty and Federal Leasing Litigation:

The firm is widely recognized as the primary legal resource for States and for "STRAC" (the State and Tribal Royalty Audit Committee, consisting of auditors for 11 States and four Indian tribes), on issues relating to royalties from oil and gas production on federal lands and other State mineral royalty and leasing issues.

Cases in this area include:

Chiang v. Kemp Thornei, 04CA119 (U.S. D.R. DC 2007)

Phillips v. Lujan, Nos. 89-C-887-B and 90-C-1052-E (N.D.Okla.), where three States, a tribe, and STRAC supported the Secretary of Interior's defense against the efforts of two oil companies to limit the access of federal, State, and tribal auditors to production and sales records.

California v. Watt, No. 81-1217 (D.D.C.) (filed May 26, 1981), the first litigation in which a State invoked judicial review of U.S. Department of the Interior federal royalty management procedures, and the only such case to result in financial recovery for a State.

Oklahoma v. Ratex, No. C87-58 (D.C.Okla.) (filed July 1, 1987), the first litigation in which a State asserted that the traditional obligations of oil and gas lessee prudence and diligence extended to administrative price control action to maximize royalties, resulting in several rulings strengthening State enforcement of royalty obligations.

Arkla Exploration Co. v. Watt, 548 F.Supp. 466, 76 Oil & Gas Rep. 1 (W.D. Ark. 1982)(preliminary); 562 F.Supp. 1214, 78 Oil & Gas Rep. 235 (1983), affirmed, 734 F.2d 347, 81 Oil & Gas Rep. 486 (8th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, sub nom. Texas Oil & Gas Corp. v. Arkla Exploration Co.,469 U.S. 1158, 105 S. Ct. 905, 83 L.Ed.2d 920 (1985).  In Arkla, the firm, on behalf of Arkansas and a private company, successfully tried the first action in which federal mineral leases were ordered withdrawn for failure to properly evaluate scientific data. We successfully briefed and argued the appeal and opposed certiorari.

State Taxation Issues:

The firm's tax law practice focuses on issues of State taxing power under the U.S. Constitution, including the constraints of the federal treaty power, the Commerce, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.  In addition to assisting States' efforts to defend State unitary taxes against foreign governments' attempts at federal preemption through treaties, the firm has counseled and assisted States in a wide variety of tax cases, including:

Barclays Bank, PLC v. Franchise Tax Board & Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, 512 U.S. 298 (1994)  We filed two amici briefs, one on behalf of Congressmen Don Edwards, et al. and one of behalf of California Tax Reform Association, et al.

Kraft Foods v. Iowa Department of Revenue, 505 U.S. 71 (1992).  We filed the amicus brief for the State and Local Legal Center in support of Iowa's unitary tax.

Quill Corp. v. State of North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992).  We filed the Multistate Tax Commission’s amicus brief in support of a State's right to require mail order marketers to collect the State's use tax.

Franchise Tax Board v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd., 493 U.S. 331 (1990). We filed an amicus brief for the State and Local Legal Center supporting California's contention that a foreign corporation does not have standing to attack a State tax in federal court.  The Court unanimously upheld the State position.

Amerada Hess Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 490 U.S. 66, (1989). We assisted the New Jersey Attorney General's office in briefing and arguing the State's right to use a tax scheme different from the federal government's. A unanimous Court accepted the State's position.

Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252, (1989). Our amicus brief for the State and Local Legal Center supporting the constitutionality of the Illinois tax on interstate telephone calls was cited by the Court in upholding the tax.