Partners Shay Dvoretzky, Eben Colby and Parker Rider-Longmaid describe strategy and courtroom choices behind a Supreme Court victory that favored the fund industry by framing the case within the Court’s skepticism of implied private rights of action.
Skadden framed the case around the Supreme Court’s recent trend of limiting implied private rights of action, which helped shape the Justices’ reception.
Presenting a complicated statutory scheme to Justices who are generalists required simplifying legal theory without sacrificing precision.
Experience arguing complex statutory questions at the Supreme Court proved decisive in anticipating the Court’s likely areas of skepticism.
A Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom team led by partners Shay Dvoretzky, Eben Colby and Parker Rider-Longmaid secured a Supreme Court victory that the firm describes as its biggest win of the year so far for the fund industry. The Law.com feature compiles the partners' account of the strategy, key decisions and courtroom challenges that produced the result.
Translating technical law for generalist Justices
The partners emphasized the practical constraint that the Justices are generalists when it comes to highly technical statutory schemes. The litigation strategy focused on explaining the statute's structure and limits in straightforward terms while preserving doctrinal detail that mattered to the legal question before the Court. The result was a presentation designed to reduce conceptual clutter and keep attention on the central legal threshold—whether the statute implies a private cause of action.
Skadden's team credited their prior experience arguing complex statutory questions at the Supreme Court level. That experience helped anticipate the Justices' lines of inquiry and to calibrate oral argument and briefing to the Court's institutional concerns. The lawyers describe this institutional familiarity as a practical advantage in steering the case toward a favorable outcome.
The partners discuss tactical choices: tightening the factual and statutory narrative, directing the Court to precedent that restricts implied rights, and preparing concise answers to predictable judicial questions. Those choices were aimed at keeping the debate centered on the discrete legal point rather than sprawling policy arguments that might invite broader remedies.
The full Law.com feature includes the partners' detailed reflections and was published September 29, 2026. The piece appears in Law.com's "How We Clinched Our Biggest Win of the Year So Far" series and includes photos of the partners. Access to the full text on Law.com requires a subscription.
Skadden's account credits a clear doctrinal frame, disciplined explanation of statutory mechanics for generalist Justices, and Supreme Court experience for producing a win that protects fund industry defendants by limiting the scope for implied private rights of action.
Rachel Cannon of Steptoe and Phyllis Jones of Covington & Burling successfully represented Mead Johnson in the first bellwether trial over cow's milk-based infant formula.
The memo reads like a love letter to associates who joined the new firm. The post A Five-Month-Old Firm Just Matched The Milbank Scale appeared first on Above the Law .
Loading more related stories...
Open the app view to save this story, compare related coverage, and continue from the same source.