William K. Lane III

Successfully represented energy company before U.S. Supreme Court in case concerning authorization to construct a major natural gas pipeline (Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association). Successfully defended cable company before U.S. Supreme Court in lawsuit challenging company's right to control what programming to carry (Charter Communications Inc. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media). Mounted challenge in U.S. Supreme Court against New York City law preventing licensed gun owners from transporting firearms outside city limits (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York), in addition to litigating numerous other Second Amendment challenges. Defended international consulting firm in FCA dispute over software licensing rights. Represented major pharmaceutical company in jury trial concerning patentability of cholesterol-fighting antibodies. Represented association of wireless carriers in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit challenging permissibility of Kentucky law mandating assessment of fees to fund enhanced emergency 911 services. Argued in multiple federal district courts on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education in defense of rule that allocated emergency federal coronavirus funds between public and private schools. Represented the United States in federal court at hearing on motion to substitute the United States for the President pursuant to the Westfall Act. Argued in federal district court in defense of Department of Health and Human Services rule prohibiting discrimination in the allocation of medical services. Argued on behalf of Guatemalan asylum applicant in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (ultimately securing relief under the Convention Against Torture), in addition to litigating numerous other pro bono matters concerning religious liberty, government takings, veterans’ benefits, and the restoration of rights to a released felon. Argued on behalf of the DOJ in U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Seventh Circuits in asylum actions, in addition to representing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in immigration disputes in other federal appellate courts. Represented airline manufacturer in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in dispute over contract for navigation software, in addition to litigating numerous other contract disputes in federal and state court, as well as in arbitration. Advised and litigated on behalf of numerous manufacturers challenging regulations issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Represented New Jersey mutual savings bank in litigation challenging permissibility of accounts opened by out-of-state investors. Represented health plan management services organization in contract dispute with pharmacy benefits manager in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

This comment argues that the Ninth Circuit's Horne decision gravely misconstrued Takings Clause jurisprudence in three ways: it applied a regulatory takings analysis to a de facto physical seizure of property; it proclaimed that personal property deserves a lesser degree of constitutional protection than real property; and it attempted to justify an extortionate demand by the Government that amounted to an unconstitutional condition placed on the right to possess property. The comment warns that the substance of the Ninth Circuit's Horne opinion, if left uncorrected by the Supreme Court, will undermine property rights.

Washington, DC – Wiley has secured a significant victory on behalf of Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc. (FRAC) and Franklin Armory, Inc. in a challenge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) classification of certain firearms under the Gun Control Act (GCA) and National Firearms Act (NFA).

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of a group of fishermen who challenged a decades-old legal doctrine that they say gave the administrative state too much power over their business.