Charles G. Curtis

2020-21 Wisconsin Presidential Recount and Related Litigation

Represented President Biden in the 2020 Wisconsin Presidential recount and judicial appeals, and represented the Democratic Party in defending against numerous additional lawsuits challenging President Biden’s Wisconsin victory. See, e.g., Trump v. Biden, 2020 WI 91, 394 Wis.2d 629, 951 N.W.2d 568, cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1387 (2021); Feehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2020 WL 7250219 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 9, 2020) (appeal dismissed as moot); Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission,  2020 WL 7318940  (E.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2020), aff’d, 983 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1516 (2021).

2020 Pandemic-Related Voting Rights Litigation

Represented the Democratic Party in challenging the enforcement of several Wisconsin registration and voting restrictions in the context of the escalating COVID-19 pandemic. The district court’s first preliminary injunction, even as narrowed on appeal by the Seventh Circuit and Supreme Court, prevented the disenfranchisement of nearly 80,000 voters whose valid absentee ballots were timely cast on or before the April 7 primary but not received until after the election because of mail delays. The district court subsequently granted similar relief for the November general election, but was reversed by the Seventh Circuit and Supreme Court. See RNC v. DNC, 140 S. Ct. 1205 (2020); DNC v. Wisconsin State Legislature, 141 S. Ct. 28 (2020).

Wisconsin Voter ID Litigation

Has represented numerous voters and voting rights organizations since 2011 in repeated federal challenges to Wisconsin’s harsh voter ID laws and other voter suppression legislation under Section 2 of the Voting Right Act and the U.S. Constitution.  This work has included multiple injunction hearings and expedited appeals.  Although much of the district court injunctive relief in these cases has been overturned on appeal, the ongoing litigation has led to extensive regulatory, judicial and legislative changes to Wisconsin’s ID regime. See League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) of Wisconsin v. Deininger, 17 F. Supp. 3d 837 (E.D. Wis.), rev’d, 768 F.3d 744 (7th Cir.), rehearing en banc denied by an equally divided court, 773 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1551 (2015); One Wisconsin Inst., Inc. v. Thomsen, 198 F. Supp. 3d 896 (W.D. Wis. 2016), aff’d in part, rev’d in part & remanded in part sub nom. Luft v. Evers, 835 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2020), on remand, 490 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (W.D. Wis. 2020).

2016 Wisconsin Presidential Recount

Represented Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Wisconsin Presidential recount and related state court proceedings.

Shelby County v. Holder*

Authored an amicus brief arguing that Congress’s 2006 reauthorization of the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act was supported by a detailed analysis of hundreds of Section 2 cases decided between 1982 and 2005, which demonstrated that race discrimination in voting remains concentrated in the jurisdictions subject to preclearance.

Shays v. Federal Election Commission*

Served as lead plaintiffs’ counsel in APA/Chevron litigation that successfully challenged nearly two dozen Federal Election Commission regulations pertaining to restrictions on “soft money,” electioneering communications, and coordinated expenditures. See 337 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2004), aff’d, 414 F.3d 76 (D.C. Cir. 2005), on remand, 508 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2007), aff’d in part & rev’d in part, 528 F.3d 914 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission*

Represented Senator John McCain, Senator Russell Feingold, and several of their colleagues in helping to defend the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. See 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C.), aff’d in part & rev’d in part, 540 U.S. 93 (2003). Chuck presented briefing and oral argument to the three-judge district court on the “coordination” issues on behalf of the Congressional sponsors, and was a member of the U.S. Supreme Court briefing team.

*Prior Firm Experience

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan

Part of team that represented Mylan Inc. in successfully opposing efforts by Allergan, Inc. and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe to use tribal sovereign immunity to shield Allergan’s lucrative patents on Restasis® eye drops from inter partes review by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Chuck was heavily involved in the PTAB and Federal Circuit proceedings, and was Counsel of Record for Mylan and other respondents in the Supreme Court in successfully opposing certiorari review. 896 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1547 (2019).

Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren

Part of team that represented landowners seeking to quiet title to a disputed boundary area with an adjoining parcel of non-trust land recently purchased on the open market by an Indian tribe. The tribe waived its claims of sovereign immunity from quiet-title actions in state court after the U.S. Supreme Court remanded to the Washington Supreme Court for that court to consider the applicability by analogy of the “immovable property” exception, which bars state and foreign sovereigns from claiming immunity from actions affecting land owned outside the scope of their sovereign domains. 138 S. Ct. 1649 (2018).

Attorney Liability Claims

Represents attorneys and law firms in professional liability disputes involving Native American legal issues. Chuck has represented clients in such matters in federal, state, and tribal courts as well as in mediation. One such dispute involved a law firm accused of negligence in connection with the issuance of Native American gaming revenue bonds; another involved a tribe that threatened to sue its former law firm in tribal court for alleged negligence in connection with an off-reservation commercial transaction.

Commercial and Regulatory Matters

Counsels many clients in diverse industries, including financial, health care, data services, and energy, with respect to their business relationships and negotiations with Native American tribes and tribal entities, and in doing business in Indian country.

Native American Involvement in Tobacco Products Manufacturing and Distribution*

Represented Philip Morris USA Inc. in connection with a variety of Native American litigation, business and government affairs issues throughout the United States. This work included participation in various legislative, regulatory, and litigation efforts to stop the illicit manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale of tobacco products in violation of relevant federal and state laws; monitoring and advising on Native American tobacco-related trends and developments; and assisting with Native American issues regarding state implementation of the Master Settlement Agreement and related laws.

Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York*

Represented the Town of Lenox, New York in litigation in which the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether tribal sovereign immunity prevents local governments from foreclosing on tax-delinquent non-trust private property that tribes have purchased on the open market. In the midst of briefing, the Oneida Nation waived its claims of sovereign immunity against foreclosure in order to avoid a damaging Supreme Court ruling. See 131 S. Ct. 704 (2011).

Klamath Tribes of Oregon v. PacifiCorp*

Defended PacifiCorp against tribal claims seeking over $1 billion in compensatory and punitive damages for the interference with anadromous fish runs caused by the construction and operation of government-authorized dams on the Klamath River beginning in 1911. After oral argument, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the Klamath Tribes' claims. See 268 Fed. Appx. 575 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 821 (2008).

Oneida Tribe of Indians v. Village of Hobart*

Represented various non-Indian parties in litigation over land use and condemnation authority with respect to fee lands inside reservation boundaries. See 542 F. Supp. 2d 908 (E.D. Wis. 2008).

City of Sherrill, New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York*

Represented several town governments in landmark litigation in which the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the Oneida Nation had not reacquired sovereignty over lands it purchased on the open market, notwithstanding that those lands were within its historic reservation boundaries and had been illegally acquired from its predecessors in prior centuries. The Court grounded much of its decision on several arguments developed exclusively in the towns’ amici brief. See 544 U.S. 197 (2005).

Oneida Indian Nation of New York State v. County of Oneida*

Defended Oneida Ltd., the largest private landowner in the New York Oneida land claim area, against tribal claims to continuing possessory rights and sovereignty over approximately 270,000 acres of Central New York State. The District Court expressly adopted large parts of Oneida Ltd.’s briefing and oral argument in holding that the Oneida could not, as a matter of law, recover possession or damages from modern-day private landowners for historic governmental wrongdoing in dispossessing the tribes of their lands. See 199 F.R.D. 61 (N.D.N.Y. 2000).

“Treatment as a State” Regulatory Proceedings and Litigation*

Represented numerous trade groups and companies in several regulatory proceedings and lawsuits challenging EPA’s delegation of regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act to various Wisconsin tribes, and in challenging tribal water and air quality standards adopted under that authority.

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. Thompson*

Represented the Wisconsin Paper Council in successfully defending against the Menominee’s aboriginal and treaty-based claims to continuing natural resource rights in more than nine million acres of eastern and central Wisconsin and the offshore waters of Lake Michigan and Green Bay. See 922 F. Supp. 184 (W.D. Wis. 1996), case dismissed, 934 F. Supp. 999 (W.D. Wis. 1996), aff’d, 161 F.3d 449 (7th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1066 (1999).

Sokaogon Chippewa Community v. Exxon Corp.*

Represented Exxon Corp. in successfully defending against a tribal claim to 144 square miles of northeastern Wisconsin (including mineral deposits). The federal courts held, based on a voluminous summary judgment historical record, that the tribe’s possessory and mineral rights had been extinguished in their entirety. See 805 F. Supp. 680 (E.D. Wis. 1992), aff’d, 2 F.3d 219 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1196 (1994).

*Prior Firm Experience

Promega Shareholder “Oppression” Litigation

Represented William A. Linton, founder and CEO of Promega Corporation, in litigation brought by several disgruntled shareholders against Linton and Promega claiming “oppression” under Wisconsin’s dissolution statute, Wis. Stats. § 180.1430. The case settled after an interlocutory appeal, a one-month bench trial, and extensive post-trial briefing and oral argument.

“Dealer Management System” Antitrust Litigation

Represents The Reynolds and Reynolds Company in antitrust litigation challenging its “closed system” data security protections that prevent “hostile data integrators” from obtaining access to confidential data and selling it to third-party vendors. See Authenticom, Inc. v. CDK Global, LLC et al., 874 F.3d 1019 (7th Cir. 2017).

Copyright Royalty Distribution*

Represented Major League Baseball and other sports leagues and associations in Copyright Royalty Board proceedings to determine the distribution of compulsory license royalties paid by cable systems and satellite carriers for the right to retransmit broadcast programming, and in D.C. Circuit appeal addressing jurisdiction to review the Board’s decisions. See Independent Producers Group v. Library of Congress, 792 F.3d 132 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata Litigation*

Represented Microsoft Corporation in the defense of numerous federal and state antitrust lawsuits in California, Arizona, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and other jurisdictions, with particular emphasis on the collateral estoppel and res judicata issues arising out of U.S. v. Microsoft. Subsequently represented numerous additional clients—including VISA USA, 3M and Philip Morris USA Inc.—in federal and state litigation defending against motions for collateral estoppel and res judicata based on prior government litigation.

Mine Permit Proceedings and Related Litigation*

Represented several mining companies in permit and approval proceedings (and related litigation) under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Water Resources Development Act and other Great Lakes water diversion laws, National Historic Preservation Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and various state, local, and tribal mining and environmental laws.

*Prior Firm Experience