Eamon P. Joyce

Eamon has extensive experience representing clients in the United States Supreme Court, and a wealth of first-chair experience in other appellate courts. He regularly presents oral argument in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and he also has argued appeals before the New York Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Sixth, Eleventh Circuits, and District of Columbia Circuits, and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. In addition to his appellate work, Eamon has argued before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) and regularly argues motions in the federal district courts and state trial courts. He has first-hand understanding of the importance of pressing legal arguments at all phases of proceedings and in developing a strong record for appeal. Eamon has significant experience in defending companies in class actions in trial courts and on appeal, and regularly does so in cases presenting claims under New York consumer protection law, specifically General Business Law §§ 349, 350. He also has handled a range of data breach litigations, products liability cases, business-to-business disputes, and government-facing cases, and he has regularly represented parties in federal Multidistrict Litigation proceedings and before the JPML.

Eamon’s representative cases include:

• Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 97 F.4th 16 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (argued appeal in which court upheld a FERC decision rejecting Sierra Club’s challenges to our client’s efforts to construct a natural gas pipeline)
• Bruce v. Citigroup Inc., 75 F. 4th 297 (2d Cir. 2023)
• Crago v. Charles Schwab & Co., 2021 WL 4990234 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2021) (obtained ruling denying certification of securities class action following oral argument), petition for Rule 23(f) review denied sub nom., Wolfson v. Charles Schwab & Co., No. 21-80113 (9th Cir. 2022), rehearing denied (9th Cir. 2022).
• Ford v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., 995 F.3d 616 (8th Cir. 2021) (handled appeal in which the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s class certification of securities fraud claims alleging that clients breached their duty of “best execution”).
• N.Y. State Department of Environmental Conservation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 991 F.3d 439 (2d Cir. 2021).
• In the Matter of National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. Schueckler, 35 N.Y.3d 297 (2020).
• Jackson v. Abernathy, 960 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2020) (per curiam).
• Kurtz v. Costco Wholesale Corp. et al., 818 F. App’x 57 (2d Cir. 2020) (argued appeal in which the court, inter alia, reversed for lack of Article III standing the district court’s Rule 23(b)(2) certification of a class action seeking injunctive relief against our client).
• National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. BMC Stock Holdings, Inc., 796 F. App’x 45 (2d Cir. 2019) (argued appeal affirming decision granting our client’s petition to compel arbitration of claims against it).
• My24HourNews.com, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 791 F. App’x 788 (11th Cir. 2019) (lead counsel in appeal affirming dismissal of contract and business tort claims against our client).
• National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation, 761 F. App’x 68 (2d Cir. 2019) (argued appeal in which the Second Circuit vacated an agency decision denying our client a permit under the Clean Water Act. The victory saw Eamon and his team score Law360’s top legal lions title.).
• Deason v. Fujifilm Holdings Corp., 165 A.D.3d 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2018).
• Bacon v. Nygard, 160 A.D.3d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2018) (argued appeal in which the court reversed the dismissal of our client’s defamation claims on forum non conveniens grounds).
• Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 US 148 (2018) (represented amici in support of prevailing party in immigration case in which the majority opinion relied on our clients’ brief).
• Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 689 F. App’x 89 (2d Cir. 2017).
• Monarch Consulting v. National Union Fire Insurance Company, 26 N.Y.3d 659 (2016) (represented prevailing party in decision holding that arbitrators, not courts, must resolve the enforceability of client’s arbitration provisions in contracts with its insureds).
• Ross v. Citigroup, Inc., 630 F. App’x 79 (2d Cir. 2015) (argued appeal affirming post-trial judgment in favor of firm client in case alleging that defendants had engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to adopt arbitration provisions in its cardholder agreements).
• United States v. Apple, Inc. et al., 791 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2015) (presented oral argument on behalf of publisher challenging injunction in antitrust action).
• Pippins v. KPMG LLP, 759 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2014) (holding that firm client KPMG correctly classified the plaintiffs, whom it employed as “audit associates,” as overtime-exempt learned professionals under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In doing so, the court addressed FLSA issues of first impression in the Circuit, and concluded that the plaintiffs “are precisely the types of professionals the regulations seek to exempt from [the] FLSA.”).
• Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (represented retired military officers and veterans’ group as amici in support of petitioners who successfully challenged the constitutionality of state laws governing marriage licensure and recognition of marriages performed out of state).
• United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) (represented retired military officers, civilian leaders, and veterans’ groups as amici in support of successful Fifth Amendment challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act).
• Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington et al., 566 U.S. 318 (2012).
• Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, 551 U.S. 308 (2007) (briefed appeal in which Sidley’s client prevailed and the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision addressing the extent to which a court must consider competing inferences in determining whether a securities fraud complaint has alleged facts sufficient to establish a “strong inference” that the defendants acted with scienter, as required under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act).
• Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005) (represented amicus in support of prevailing petitioner in case holding that the jury instructions at issue failed to properly convey the intent element of the charged crime).
• Norfolk S. Ry. v. James N. Kirby, Pty. Ltd., 543 U.S. 14 (2004) (represented prevailing petitioner during cert. stage and on the merits in case addressing whether federal law governed the interpretation of certain maritime contracts and, if so, whether contractual liability limits on shippers extended to downstream carriers such as railroads).

Eamon is the chair of Sidley’s firmwide Pro Bono and Public Interest Law Committee, and he previously chaired the New York office’s pro bono efforts. In addition to these oversight roles, Eamon personally devotes a significant amount of time litigating pro bono cases. His docket currently includes a challenge to a juvenile life without parole sentence, civil rights impact litigation against a major school system, and a representation of a survivor of domestic violence in challenging her sentence. Since 2005, he has participated in the firm’s Capital Litigation Project in which Sidley lawyers across the country represent prisoners on death row in Alabama. For more than a decade, he represented a client on his actual innocence claims in collateral review proceedings. Eamon led the team that conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing on our client’s behalf in Alabama state court in March 2012, and argued our client’s appeal in 2018, which remained pending when our client died of natural causes. In another capital case, Daniel v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, 822 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2016), Eamon argued a winning habeas corpus appeal before the Eleventh Circuit.

Eamon also successfully argued Forster v. Steward (6th Cir. 2010), in which the Sixth Circuit granted habeas relief for our client based on the denial of his right to counsel during state court proceedings.

Eamon has also assisted clients in pro bono civil rights litigation. For instance, in the landmark marriage equality cases Obergefell v. Hodges (U.S. 2015) and United States v. Windsor (U.S. 2013), Eamon represented as amici former Secretaries of Defense, many other retired military leaders, former United States Senators and Representatives, and veterans’ organizations who supported petitioners’ constitutional challenges to the marriage laws at issue. Previously he represented retired military officers as amici in supporting appellants’ constitutional challenge to the military’s former “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in Cook v. Gates (1st Cir. 2008). He also assisted in drafting an amicus brief that retired high-ranking military officers and civilian leaders filed in the United States Supreme Court in support of the constitutionality of the University of Michigan’s affirmative action programs in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003).

Eamon was the inaugural D.C. Bar Pro Bono Graduate Fellow after he graduated from law school. During his fellowship at the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), he assisted SLDN attorneys in representing military personnel affected by “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

• Eamon is a member of the SidleyWomen committee and serves on the Board of Directors for Brooklyn Legal Services. Eamon’s other memberships include the American Bar Association, Section of Litigation, Appellate Practice Committee; the New York City Bar Association; and the Federal Bar Council.