David Frederick

Born on Naval Station Great Lakes, Frederick earned a bachelor's degree in 1983 from the University of Pittsburgh.{{Cite web |url=http://mac10.umc.pitt.edu/m/FMPro?-db=ma&-lay=a&-format=d.html&id=2733&-Find |title=University of Pittsburgh News: For Second Year Straight, Pitt Student Named Rhodes Scholar |access-date=2009-08-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100613164302/http://mac10.umc.pitt.edu/m/FMPro?-db=ma&-lay=a&-format=d.html&id=2733&-Find |archive-date=2010-06-13 |url-status=dead }} Frederick obtained a Doctor of Philosophy degree from University College, Oxford in 1987 as a Rhodes Scholar. In 1989, Frederick earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, where he also served as articles editor for the Texas Law Review.

After law school, Frederick clerked for Judge Joseph T. Sneed of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Justice Byron R. White of the U.S. Supreme Court.[http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202428981439 Mauro, Tony. "A Low-Profile Ride to Top of High Court Bar" Legal Times, March 16, 2009] In 1995, he was named counselor to the Inspector General. One year later, he became an assistant to the Solicitor General, a position he held until 2001. During his time with the Solicitor General's Office he earned the Department of Justice Inspector General’s Award for Exceptional Service, the Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Award and the Coast Guard Medal for Distinguished Public Service.

Frederick has argued more than fifty cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, across a wide range of issues and industries.{{Cite news|url=https://www.law.com/supremecourtbrief/2018/03/26/stacked-class-actions-an-argument-milestone-about-kennedys-new-recusal/|title='Stacked' Class Actions {{!}} An Argument Milestone {{!}} About Kennedy's New Recusal {{!}} Supreme Court Brief {{!}} National Law Journal|work=Supreme Court Brief {{!}} National Law Journal|access-date=2018-03-27}} Frederick's victories often strengthen plaintiff and consumer interests. Throughout his career, he has demonstrated an ability to persuade conservative justices to take pro-consumer positions.

In Wyeth v. Levine (6-3), Frederick helped to convince Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer and Thomas that federal approval of labels that provide warnings about side effects of drugs do not bar lawsuits claiming inadequate warnings of a health risk in state law.{{Cite web |url=http://thelegalbroadcastnetwork.squarespace.com/the-lbn-blog/2009/3/17/counsel-for-diana-levinedavid-frederick.html |title="Counsel for Diana Levine...David Frederick," Legal Broadcast News Network Blog, March 17, 2009 |access-date=April 14, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090603022356/http://thelegalbroadcastnetwork.squarespace.com/the-lbn-blog/2009/3/17/counsel-for-diana-levinedavid-frederick.html |archive-date=June 3, 2009 |url-status=dead }} In the case, Diana Levine sued Wyeth for failing to warn patients that the drug Phenergan could cause gangrene when administered using direct IV injection. The 2009 verdict, which affirmed a ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court, was a victory for Levine and for victims who could continue bringing their cases to state courts.{{Cite web |url=http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2009/03/04/ |title=Morrison, Pat, "Supreme Court Rules that Patients Can Sue Drug Makers," 89.3KPCC, Southern California Public Radio, March 4, 2009. |access-date=November 11, 2013 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20131111004058/http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2009/03/04/ |archive-date=November 11, 2013 |url-status=dead }}[https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96487166 Totenberg, Nina, “Supreme Court Hears Case Involving Drug Labels, NPR Morning Edition, November 3, 2008.]

In 2010, in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, Frederick argued against the application of a statute of limitations for securities fraud cases based on mere inquiry notice of potential fraud.[https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703939404574568191990211408 Kendall, Brent, "Some Justices Voice Skepticism of Merck in Vioxx Case," Wall Street Journal, December 1, 2009][http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202453284354&hbxlogin=1 Mauro, Tony, "Justices Give Boost to Securities Fraud Plaintiffs in Merck Ruling," The National Law Journal, April 28, 2010] In this particular case, shareholders sued Merck after the value of $10 billion Vioxx tanked due to concerns about dangerous side effects. The plaintiffs argued that Merck withheld information about the dangers of the drug. Merck asserted a statute of limitations defense, which would have ended before the shareholders had knowledge of all the requisite elements of fraud, but Frederick argued that the statute of limitations should not begin until the plaintiff has enough facts to survive a motion to dismiss.[https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/12/01/on-mercks-interesting-supreme-court-argument/ Jones, Ashby, "On Merck’s Interesting Supreme Court Argument," Wall Street Journal, December 1, 2009]

The next year, in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano (9-0), Frederick argued that statistics involving adverse drug event reports could not negate materiality as a matter of law in a securities fraud suit if the number of adverse reports was not "statistically significant", upholding the decision of the Ninth Circuit.[https://www.npr.org/2011/03/22/134771092/Supreme-Court-Rules-Against-Drug-Company Block, Melissa,” Supreme Court Rebuffs Big Pharma in Zicam Suit, NPR All Things Considered, March 22, 2011.]

In 2013, Frederick successfully represented Kaiser in defending a $142 million jury verdict against Pfizer for fraudulent off-label marketing of Neurontin.[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pfizer-neurontin-idUSBRE93303R20130404 Brown, Nick, "Court upholds $142 million verdict against Pfizer over Neurontin, Reuters, April 3, 2013]

In 2019, Frederick successfully represented Fosamax patients in a challenge by Merck to personal injury claims.{{Cite news |title=Merck, U.S. to Tell Justices FDA Action Bars Fosamax Suits |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product-liability-and-toxics-law/merck-u-s-to-tell-justices-fda-action-bars-fosamax-suits |access-date=2022-07-01 |website=news.bloomberglaw.com |language=en}}

In 2013, Frederick and a team of lawyers represented 4,500 retired NFL players in a high-profile case against the National Football League.[http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/nfl-lawsuit Hoye, Sarah, “NFL wants players' suit over concussions dismissed, CNN, April 10, 2013] Frederick represented the retired players at oral argument in the district court against the NFL’s motion to dismiss the complaints on the ground of preemption under the Labor-Management Relations Act.{{Cite web |url=http://www.abc57.com/video/NFL-202229361.html |title=Video: "Judge hears NFL concussion case," ABC 57 News, April 9, 2013. |access-date=November 11, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131111013851/http://www.abc57.com/video/NFL-202229361.html |archive-date=November 11, 2013 |url-status=dead }} Among other arguments, Frederick argued that the NFL actively concealed the health risks of concussions to NFL players.[https://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--nfl-former-players-burden-of-proof-jury-anita-brody-case-032334198.html Cole, Jason,“Burden of proof rests with former players to show NFL knew of significant neurological risks,” Yahoo Sports, April 10, 2013][https://www.usatoday.com/videos/sports/nfl/2013/04/09/2069061/ Video: “Ex-players call NFL brain-injury panel a ‘sham,’” USA Today, April 9, 2013.] The case reached a $765 million settlement to fund medical exams, concussion-related compensation and medical research.[http://www.silive.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/08/judge_nfl_players_to_settle_co.html “Judge: NFL, players to settle concussion lawsuits,” Associated Press, August 29, 2013]

Frederick represented the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network (MASN) during negotiations with Comcast to bring the Washington Nationals and Baltimore Orioles to Comcast's programming lineup in the Washington D.C. area.[https://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/nationals/2006-04-07-nats-tv-rights-comcast_x.htm Niland, Marty, "D.C. cable outfit seeks end to Nats' flap." The Associated Press, April 7, 2006] Frederick also represented MASN through three successful Federal Communications Commission (FCC) arbitration rulings against Time Warner Cable.[http://baltimore.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2008/06/09/daily7.html Terry, Robert, "Second arbitrator rules Time Warner Cable must carry MASN." Baltimore Business Journal, June 9, 2008]

In Bates v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, Frederick represented a group of peanut farmers from Texas whose crops had burned after the application of an herbicide produced by respondent Dow AgroSciences. The court held in 2005 that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act’s express preemption provision does not preclude a range of claims that farmers might bring against manufacturers of agricultural pesticides and insecticides.

In Hardeman v. Monsanto, Frederick successfully persuaded the Supreme Court not to review the ruling of a lower court that awarded $25.2 million to Edwin Hardemen, a San Francisco man who was diagnosed with cancer after using Roundup, made by Monsanto, on his crops for 26 years.{{Cite web |last=Egelko |first=Bob |date=2022-06-21 |title=Supreme Court rejects appeal of Bay Area weedkiller verdict, a case that launched thousands of lawsuits nationwide |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Supreme-Court-rejects-appeal-of-Bay-Area-17256043.php |access-date=2022-06-29 |website=San Francisco Chronicle |language=en-US}} Shortly thereafter he persuaded the Supreme Court to also uphold the ruling in a similar case, Pilliod v. Monsanto.{{Cite web |title=High Court Won't Hear $87M Monsanto Roundup Appeal - Law360 |url=https://www.law360.com/articles/1506308/high-court-won-t-hear-87m-monsanto-roundup-appeal |access-date=2022-06-29 |website=www.law360.com |language=en}}

With Korein Tillery as co-counsel, Frederick led the outside litigation team on behalf of the National Credit Union Administration to recover more than $5.2 billion against Wall Street banks for their role in the 2007-2009 financial crisis. The Wall Street banks had sold faulty mortgage-backed securities to the largest credit unions. When those securities failed, the credit union system was threatened. Frederick's team successfully recovered from the largest banks on Wall Street for their role in causing the failures of those credit unions and earned $506.3 million in contingency fees.{{Cite web |title=US Agency Paid Two Firms Over $1 Billion in Battle With Banks |url=https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/almID/1202770359562/ |access-date=2022-07-01 |website=The American Lawyer |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=2 Firms Rake In $1B In Fees From NCUA's MBS Suits - Law360 |url=https://www.law360.com/articles/853810/2-firms-rake-in-1b-in-fees-from-ncua-s-mbs-suits |access-date=2022-07-01 |website=www.law360.com |language=en}}

From 2018 to 2022, Frederick led a team from Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick as lead litigation counsel for the state of Florida that recovered more than $3.6 billion against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and leading retail pharmacies for their role in causing the opioid epidemic.{{Cite web |title=State trial over Florida opioid epidemic set for ... 2022 |url=https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2020/07/16/state-trial-over-florida-opioid-epidemic-set-for-2022/ |access-date=2022-07-01 |website=Tampa Bay Times |language=en}}

Other noteworthy cases argued by Frederick include: South Carolina v. North Carolina, Idaho v. United States, New Jersey v. Delaware, United States v. Locke, Farina v. Nokia, Inc., Carter v. United States, and California v. Deep Sea Research. He has argued cases in all of the thirteen U.S. courts of appeals.{{Cite web |url=http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/profile.php?id=dcf232 |title=University of Texas Law - Faculty Bio |access-date=2009-08-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100129000403/http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/profile.php?id=dcf232 |archive-date=2010-01-29 |url-status=dead }}

In 2001, Frederick represented the United States in oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in United States v. Microsoft Corporation in an appeal of the landmark antitrust trial that had held Microsoft Corporation liable for violating antitrust laws.

In 2008, Altria Group, Inc. v. Good examined whether state-law fraud claims against cigarette makers for allegedly false statements made about light cigarettes are preempted under the federal statute that concerns tobacco labeling. In a 5–4 decision, the court held that state-law claims sounding in fraud against tobacco companies are not preempted by the express preemption provision of the federal labeling statute.[https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98293173 Totenberg, Nina, “High Court OKs Cigarette Lawsuits, NPR All Things Considered, December 15, 2008.]

Additionally, in Jones v. Harris, a 9–0 decision reached in 2010, Frederick persuaded the court to a unanimous decision in favor of investors, reversing a circuit court decision by Judge Frank Easterbrook. The plaintiffs had sued over exorbitant fees charged by mutual fund investment advisers.[https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-mar-31-la-fi-court-mutual-funds31-2010mar31-story.html Savage, David G. "Justices give mutual fund investors a crack at suing over exorbitant fee," Los Angeles Times, March 31, 2010]

In 2018, Frederick represented David Pepper as lead plaintiff in Apple Inc. v. Pepper. The case concerned Apple's monopoly on iPhone apps. Apple challenged whether the consumers could sue for antitrust violations, but the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, in the consumers' favor. The Court ruled that consumers had the right to sue Apple for practices it employed relating to its App Store.{{Cite web |title=Apple Inc. v. Pepper |url=https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/apple-v-pepper/ |access-date=2022-07-01 |website=SCOTUSblog |language=en-US}}

Also in 2018, Frederick represented AFSCME Council 31 before the Supreme Court in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, County 31.[https://www.oyez.org/advocates/david_c_frederick "Daniel C. Frederick," Oyez.org, Accessed 21 Dec. 2024.] The case decided in favor of petitioner Mark Janus, ruling the collection of agency fees by public sector unions unconstitutional in a 5–4 decision.[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1466 "Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31," Oyez.org, Accessed 21 Dec. 2024.] This overruled precedent set in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which the opinion of the court described as poorly reasoned, unworkable, and an outlier among the Supreme Court's First Amendment cases.[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf "Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit." Page 4. SupremeCourt.gov, Accessed 21 Dec. 2024.]

In 2021, Frederick represented the state of Tennessee in Mississippi v. Tennessee. In that case, Mississippi made the claim that it held property ownership rights to an aquifer that straddled the border of both states. Frederick successfully persuaded the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Tennessee, 9-0.{{Cite web |title=Mississippi v. Tennessee |url=https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mississippi-v-tennessee/ |access-date=2022-07-01 |website=SCOTUSblog |language=en-US}} The court ruled that groundwater is subject to equitable apportionment between the states.

Frederick was part of the Obama-Biden Legal Policy Team and was rumored to be on President Obama's short list for Solicitor General.[https://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/11/11/preempt-this-plaintiffs-attorney-david-frederick-for-solicitor-general/ Mundy, Alicia. "Preempt This: Plaintiffs Attorney David Frederick for Solicitor General." Wall Street Journal: Health Blog, November 11, 2008]

On May 27, 2013, the New York Times reported that President Obama was considering nominating Frederick to one of three vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/us/politics/obama-plans-to-nominate-3-judges-for-key-court.html?hp Shear, Michael D. "Obama Plans 3 Nominations for Key Court," New York Times, May 27, 2013.]

Frederick is the author of dozens of legal articles and three books:

• Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy (West, 3rd Edition, 2019)
• The Art of Oral Advocacy (West, 3rd Edition, 2019)
• Rugged Justice: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the American West, 1891-1941 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994)

At the University of Pittsburgh, Frederick created a [http://www.honorscollege.pitt.edu/opportunities/david-c-frederick-scholarship scholarship] to support tuition for six full-time undergraduate students who work part- or full-time jobs to pay for their education. He also established the [http://www.honorscollege.pitt.edu/opportunities/david-c-frederick-public-service-internship-award David C. Frederick Public Service Internship Award], which supports unpaid public service summer internships, granted by the University Honors College and the Department of Political Science.{{Cite web|url=http://www.news.pitt.edu/news/university-pittsburgh-announces-commencement-speakers-2018|title=University of Pittsburgh Announces Commencement Speakers for 2018 {{!}} University of Pittsburgh News|website=www.news.pitt.edu|language=en|access-date=2018-04-16}} Frederick serves on the board of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History.{{Cite web |title=David C. Frederick |url=https://americanhistory.si.edu/profile/1358 |access-date=2022-07-01 |website=National Museum of American History |language=en}} In February 2022, Frederick was elected as a University College Foundation Fellow at his Oxford alma mater, donating $35 million toward new facilities in July 2022.{{Cite web |last=Laurent-Smith |first=Ariane |title=David Frederick appointed as Foundation Fellow - University College Oxford - Univ |url=https://www.univ.ox.ac.uk/news/david-frederick-appointed-as-foundation-fellow/ |access-date=2022-07-06 |website=University College Oxford |language=en-GB}}{{Cite web |last=Bowyer |first=Justin |title=Univ to receive unprecedented $35 million - University College Oxford - Univ |url=https://www.univ.ox.ac.uk/news/univ-to-receive-unprecedented-35-million/ |access-date=2022-07-06 |website=University College Oxford |language=en-GB}} In June 2022, Frederick was elected to the board of trustees at his alma mater, the University of Pittsburgh, and after a multi-million dollar donation in the following month, the honors college has been named after him.{{Cite web |title=New trustees chair moving ahead quickly on chancellor search |url=https://www.utimes.pitt.edu/news/new-trustees-chair-moving |access-date=2022-07-01 |website=utimes |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=A gift from David C. Frederick will benefit students at the University of Pittsburgh and University College at Oxford University |url=https://www.pitt.edu/pittwire/features-articles/david-c-frederick-honors-college-announcement |access-date=2022-07-06 |website=University of Pittsburgh |date=6 July 2022 |language=en}}

Frederick married his wife, Sophia Lynn, in 2007 and they live in McLean, Virginia.{{Cite news |date=2007-06-17 |title=Sophia Lynn, David Frederick |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/fashion/weddings/17LYNN.html |access-date=2022-06-27 |issn=0362-4331}}

• List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 6)

{{Reflist|30em}}

• {{C-SPAN|32425}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Frederick, David}}

Category:1961 births

Category:American Rhodes Scholars

Category:Law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States

Category:Living people

Category:University of Pittsburgh alumni

Category:University of Texas School of Law alumni