Andrew Tutt | People | Arnold & Porter

Andrew Tutt focuses on Supreme Court, appellate, and complex litigation. He has won cases in federal courts across a broad cross-section of subjects, with particular experience in administrative law, intellectual property law, and civil rights law. He has argued and won three cases in the United States Supreme Court, led appeals in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits and led the strategy, briefing, and argument in complex cases in federal district courts nationwide.

Recently, Andrew argued and won a significant victory in the United States Supreme Court establishing an important structural constitutional principle and safeguarding the reemployment rights of thousands of veterans and servicemembers. The Court took the rare step of granting certiorari to a state intermediate court of appeals, without a circuit conflict, over the Solicitor Generals recommendation that the Court deny the case.

In another recent matter before the United States Supreme Court, Andrew identified a meritorious pro se petition for certiorari. Representing the petitioner pro bono, Andrew and a team of Arnold & Porter attorneys persuaded the United States Supreme Court to grant the petition, securing reversal and his clients release from federal custody.

In a recent case, Andrew persuaded the Fourth Circuit to recognize that livestreaming police officers in the discharge of their duties is First Amendment protected activity.

In another recent case, Andrew convinced the Tenth Circuit to join six other federal courts of appeals in recognizing that individuals have a clearly established First Amendment right to record police officers in the discharge of their duties in public subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

In another case, Andrew persuaded the Fourth Circuit that a federal district court fundamentally misapprehended the evidence and arguments in a high-stakes bench trial, winning, on clear error review, a reversal and remand with instructions to enter judgment in favor of his client.

In another case in the Fourth Circuit, Andrew won a preliminary injunction and summary judgment for the City of Baltimore against changes to grant criteria used to award nearly US$300 million annually. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit granted initial hearing en banc, split with the en banc Ninth Circuit, and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on four independent grounds.

In the Ninth Circuit, Andrew successfully represented three federal grantees in a high-profile challenge to the criteria used to award US$100 million in annual federal grants. Andrew persuaded the court of appeals to reverse the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and exercise its discretion to reach the merits and strike down the unlawful award criteria in light of the case's "national impact."

Andrew also led the development of a pioneering federal lawsuit on behalf of fraternities and individual Harvard students against a Harvard University policy that punished students for joining single-sex organizations. Andrew also secured the vacatur of a young adult client's LWOP sentence after persuading the state's Attorney General not to oppose a motion to vacate the sentence on the grounds that it violated the state's prohibition on cruel or unusual punishments. He has also served as lead counsel representing clients in pro bono civil rights cases challenging the constitutionality of warrantless cell phone searches at the border, the denial of access to videophone for a deaf inmate in federal prison, and extended civil detention during removal proceedings. In the last of these challenges, Andrew secured his client's release from federal custody after more than two years in prison, persuading a federal district court that his client's prolonged detention without bond violated the Due Process Clause.

Before joining Arnold & Porter, Andrew served as an Attorney-Adviser in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he aided in the preparation of legal advice to the President and federal agencies. Andrew previously served as a law clerk for Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and as an associate at a large international Washington, D.C. law firm. He is the author of numerous law review articles on constitutional and administrative law. His seminal article, An FDA for Algorithms, remains a widely-cited contribution to the still developing law of algorithmic regulation.

Andrew is a graduate of Yale Law School, where he served as an Articles Editor for The Yale Law Journal, won Yale's internal moot court competition, and received prizes for excellence in legal writing and analysis. Andrew holds a B.S. from Duke University where he triple majored in Economics, Mathematics, and Biomedical Engineering, earning honors in Economics and Engineering. Between college and law school, he spent a year in Yerevan, Armenia, working for the international anti-corruption organization Transparency International.

Focus Areas

Experience

Dupree v. Younger. Argued and won Supreme Court case establishing that purely legal issues resolved at summary judgment are preserved for appellate review even in cases that go to trial.
Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski. Argued and won Supreme Court case establishing that the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act's (FNHRA's) rights against chemical restraint and unlawful discharge are enforceable in actions against state-run nursing homes under § 1983.
Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety. Argued and won Supreme Court case establishing that states cannot assert sovereign immunity as a defense to suits under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department. Won recognition that livestreaming police officers is First Amendment protected activity in the Fourth Circuit.
Wooden v. United States. Identified pro se petition for certiorari and secured 9-0 reversal of petitioner’s career offender designation by the Supreme Court.