Andrew Kim

• Co-authored merits briefs and served as second chair in U.S. Supreme Court litigation during the 2019 Term. Successfully persuaded the Court to hold that restrictions on second or successive habeas petitions are not applicable to timely motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698 (2020)
• Argued an appeal in the Second Circuit on behalf of a crypto intelligence company defending against a defamation claim relating to a report on a crypto token, with the court of appeals affirming the district court’s order dismissing the claims against the company 
• Serving as lead counsel in a labor-injunction appeal in the California Court of Appeal on behalf of a major grocery retailer
• Argued a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) appeal in the Washington Court of Appeals. Successfully persuaded the court to affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint
• Led briefing in a Ninth Circuit appeal presenting novel issues of appellate and personal jurisdiction in the enforcement of grand jury subpoenas
• Co-authored briefs and served as second chair in First Circuit litigation concerning the interpretation of the Indian Reorganization Act. Successfully persuaded the court of appeals to affirm the district court’s decision rejecting the U.S. Department of Interior’s interpretation of the Act. Littlefield v. Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribe, 951 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2020)
• Co-authored a brief in the D.C. Circuit on behalf of a biopharmaceutical manufacturer defending FDA’s approval of the manufacturer’s 505(b)(2) application against a competitor’s exclusivity challenge. Successfully obtained affirmance of the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer and FDA. Otsuka v. Price, 869 F.3d 987 (D.C. Cir. 2017)
• Co-authored a brief in the Ninth Circuit on behalf of a national bank defending against claims of discriminatory lending. Successfully obtained affirmance of the district court’s grant of summary judgment

• Defended a national bank in multiple Fair Housing Act cases brought by municipalities alleging lending discrimination, with all suits resulting in a favorable summary judgment or voluntary dismissal
• Representing mortgage servicers in cases concerning the constitutionality of New York’s Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act
• Representing financial institutions in enforcement proceedings before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Mortgagee Review Board

• Serving as lead counsel for the operator of a mobile-app lottery courier service defending an Indian Gaming Regulatory Act lawsuit
• Representing skill-contest operators, fantasy-sports companies, and game developers in matters before state regulators
• Advising developers, operators, vendors, and investors on gaming licensing requirements and other gaming regulatory issues

Andrew maintains a diverse and active pro bono practice. Working with Kids In Need of Defense (KIND), Andrew has represented several individuals in state and federal proceedings as part of their efforts to secure Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS). His other recent pro bono representations include:

• Representing the National Security Archive as lead counsel in its FOIA action seeking records from the George W. Bush Presidential Library
• Representing the Fund for Empowerment in a challenge to the constitutionality of the City of Phoenix’s enforcement of camping and sleeping bans against the unhoused 
• Represented the proposed guardian of an unaccompanied minor seeking SIJS in an appeal of the trial court’s denial of guardianship and special findings before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. Successfully persuaded the court to reverse the trial court’s order, and persuaded the trial court on remand to provide immediate relief so that the minor could apply for SIJS in a timely manner. In 2019, Andrew received a Special Recognition Award from KIND Baltimore for his efforts in this case
• Led a Sixth Circuit appeal concerning trial counsel’s ineffective assistance of counsel and the application of the “force clause” of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
• Led a Ninth Circuit appeal arising from an unlawful-arrest and unlawful-search case