Carter G. Phillips

Representative cases in the Supreme Court include:

• U.S., Ex Rel. Tracy Schutte, et al., v. SuperValu Inc., et al, Nos. 21-1326 and 22-111, whether and when a defendant’s contemporaneous subjective understanding or beliefs about the lawfulness of its conduct are relevant to whether it “knowingly” violated the False Claims Act. 
• Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, No. 21-1168, whether the due process clause prohibits a state from exercising jurisdiction over litigation between a plaintiff, who is a non-resident of the state, suing a corporation, which also is a non-resident of that state, on a cause of action that did not arise in that state solely because the corporation has registered to do business in the state.
• CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., No. 18-565 (March 30, 2020), which addresses whether in an admiralty case, a “safe berth” clause in a contract to ship oil constitutes a warranty that the ship will arrive safely or merely an assurance to act reasonably in selecting the destination port.
• PDR Network v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, 139 S. Ct. 2051 (June 20, 2019), which addresses whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the FCC's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. 
• Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, 139 S. Ct. 2449 (June 26, 2019), which addresses whether the Twenty-First Amendment empowers states, notwithstanding the dormant Commerce Clause, to discriminate against out-of-state retailers of liquor by requiring them to reside in-state for a specified time.
• Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Company, 138 S. Ct. 1865 (June 14, 2018), arguing for the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China as amicus curiae, which involved whether and under what circumstances a United States court is “bound to defer” as a matter of international comity to a foreign government’s formal statement of its own law. 
• Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., 137 S. Ct. 734 (Feb. 22, 2017), which involved whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that supplying a single, commodity component of a multi-component invention from the United States is an infringing act under 35 U.S.C.§ 271(f)(1), exposing the manufacturer to liability for all worldwide sales. 
• FERC v. Electric Power Supply Association, et al., 136 S. Ct. 760 (Jan. 25, 2016), which involved the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) authority to regulate the compensation that regional transmission operators pay for demand response services.  
• Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (Jan. 25, 2015) , which involved the question of whether a district court’s factual finding in support of its construction of a patent claim term should be reviewed de novo, as the Federal Circuit requires, or for clear error.
• Alice Corporation PTY. LTD. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (June 19, 2014), which determined whether claims to computer-implemented inventions — including claims to systems and machines, processes and items of manufacture — are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as interpreted by the Supreme Court. 
• Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness, 134 S. Ct. 1749 (April 29, 2014), in which the Court determined whether the “exceptional case” requirement in 35 U.S.C. § 285, requires that the losing party have both an objective and a subjective belief that the case lacked merit.  
• Ken Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 132 S. Ct. 2181 (June 18, 2012), in which the Court determined that the government is required to pay all of the contract support costs incurred by tribal contractors under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. 450 et seq., even though Congress imposed an express statutory cap on the appropriations available to pay all such costs to all Tribes and the Secretary was unable to pay the full costs for each tribal contractor without exceeding the aggregate statutory cap.  
• Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, 132 S. Ct. 2307 (June 21, 2012), in which the Court held that because the Commission failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent, the Commission’s standards as applied to these broadcasts were unconstitutionally vague.  

Carter is acknowledged as one of the leading appellate lawyers in the United States, having handled cases at all levels of state and federal court systems. His representative cases in the federal courts include:

• SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 20-1573 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (patent)
• San Antonio Bay Estuarine v. Formosa Plastics, No. 20-40575 (5th Cir. 2021) (Clean Water Act)
• Gary B. v. Gretchen Whitmer, No. 18-1855/18-1871 (6th Cir. 2019) (right of access to literacy)  
• Amazon.com Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 934 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2019) (tax case involving transfer pricing)  
• Prism Technologies LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 757 F. App'x 980 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (patent infringement)
• John Teets v. Great-West  Life & Annuity Insurance Company, 21 F. 3d 1200 (10th Cir. 2019) (ERISA)
• In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge, 934 F. 3d 619 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (antitrust class action)  
• William Pender v. Bank of America, 736 F. App'x 359 (4th Cir. 2018) (ERISA)  
• In Re: Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 837 F. 3d 175 (2nd Cir. 2016) (international comity)
• Microsoft Corporation v. Motorola, 696 F. 3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012) (licensing infringement)
• Commercial Union v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corp., 413 F. 3d 121 (1st Cir. 2005) (reinsurance dispute)
• Henry Lee Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 420 F. 3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2005) (Packers and Stockyards Act claim dismissal)
• Hartmarx Corp. v. Abboud, 326 F.3d 862 (7th Cir. 2003) (successful challenge to sanctions order)
• Alverez – Machain v. United States, 331 F.3d 604 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (proper interpretation of the Alien Tort Statute)

A victory in the Sixth Circuit on behalf of Detroit school children in Gary B. v. Whitmer helped Sidley earn the 2019 Public Counsel Pro Bono Award. Carter argued the case, which involved a formidable team of Sidley lawyers and outside counsel, and the Court held that schoolchildren have a fundamental right of access to literacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  

Carter has briefed and argued numerous other pro bono appeals in state and federal courts of appeals. He and co-counsel prevailed twice in Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church v. City of New York, in which the Second Circuit held that the Church’s practice of allowing homeless individuals to take refuge on Church property is part of a sincerely held religious belief protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Among Carter’s pro bono cases are many he argued before the Supreme Court. They include Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, which determined whether Medicaid providers may maintain a cause of action directly under the Supremacy Clause to enforce protections provided by 42 USC § 1396a(a)(30)(A) by asserting that the federal statute preempts a state law that reduced reimbursement rates.

Carter has a long history of participation in civic and philanthropic endeavors. He is an adjunct professor at Northwestern University School of Law, as well as a member (and former chairman) of the Dean’s Advisory Committee and Carter is co-director of the Law School’s U.S. Supreme Court Clinic. Since 2006, Sidley has sponsored the clinic, which primarily represents indigent criminal defendants. Clinic students draft briefs and identify court of appeals’ decisions as candidates for petitions for a writ of certiorari, all in partnership with the firm’s pro bono program. Carter also regularly participates in events organized by the DC Bar Foundation, including one in 2012 that benefited the Foundation’s Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP). LRAP helps D.C. poverty lawyers pay their educational debts while earning a public interest salary, essentially increasing the compensation of the attorneys serving Washington, D.C.’s most vulnerable residents. 

Carter is a member of the American Law Institute, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and of the American Bar Foundation. He is the newly elected President of the Supreme Court Historical Society, the immediate past Chair of the Federal Circuit Advisory Council, and formerly served on the Board of Governors of the Federal Circuit Bar Association. He also serves on the Board of Directors of the National Chamber Litigation Center, the public policy law firm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Carter received the 2014 Distinguished Alumni Award from Northwestern Law School. He received the Honorary Degree, Doctor of Public Service, from The Ohio State University in 2011, and the Ohio State Alumni Professional Achievement Award in 2007. Also in 2007, Carter received the Lewis F. Powell Award for Business Advocacy given by the National Chamber Litigation Center. Before that, he received Northwestern University’s Alumni Award in 2006, and its Alumni Merit Award in 1998. Carter also received the Rex Lee Advocacy Award from the J. Reuben Clark Society in 2001. He is the Vice Chair of the Ohio State University Foundation Board of Trustees, and a member of the Advisory Committee of The Ohio State University College of Arts and Sciences. Carter serves on the Advisory Committee of the Georgetown University Law Center’s Supreme Court Institute.