Photo of Jeff Johnson

Jeff Johnson

Subscribe to Jeff Johnson's Posts

Jeff helps clients navigate complex regulatory and litigation challenges with local, state, and federal authorities. His clients benefit from his decade of broad litigation experience, understanding of emerging state and federal regulatory issues, and strong relationships with attorneys general across the U.S. In addition to handling cases from trial through state or federal appeals, Jeff serves as amicus counsel in advancing legal rules to support his clients’ vital interests.

Contact:Read more about Jeff Johnson

What Happened:

A unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit revived a suit against certain pharmaceutical distributors brought under West Virginia public nuisance law. The panel held that the effects of over-distributing prescription opioids may constitute a public nuisance under West Virginia law, defined distributors’ duties under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), and held that abatement may include monetary funding to remediate alleged community harm. Notably, the Fourth Circuit’s decision comes after the West Virginia Supreme Court declined to determine the scope of West Virginia public nuisance law, and as a result, the decision refused to limit the scope of public nuisance law without guidance from the West Virginia Supreme Court.

In this episode of our special Regulatory Oversight: Solicitors General Insights series, RISE Counsel Jeff Johnson, a former deputy solicitor general in the Missouri Attorney General’s office, welcomes Michigan Solicitor General Ann Sherman and New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum. They explore the art of oral advocacy, sharing insights into how they effectively present cases. The conversation also addresses state sovereignty, emphasizing the importance of allowing states to experiment with policies and the impact of bipartisan issues, particularly those that resonate most effectively in front of SCOTUS.

At the end of a blockbuster term, the Supreme Court sharply limited the power of federal courts to issue so-called universal injunctions against government actors. The decision in Trump v. CASA (and related cases) did not foreclose federal courts’ power to enjoin federal policies that are likely unconstitutional but curtailed the reach of those injunctions to the parties (or potentially the plaintiff class) in a suit. The result will require affected parties to litigate rather than wait on potential widespread relief from courts in distant corners of the U.S.

In this episode of our special Regulatory Oversight: Solicitors General Insights series, Jeff Johnson is joined by District of Columbia Solicitor General Caroline Van Zile and Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell to discuss their respective offices, and the distinct challenges and focuses of each. Noah shares insights into the Washington Solicitor General’s Office, and Caroline discusses the multifaceted nature of the District of Columbia Solicitor General’s Office, as they balance a diverse array of appellate work and providing legal advice on novel issues.

In this episode of our special Regulatory Oversight: Solicitors General Insights series, Jeff Johnson is joined by Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan and Indiana Solicitor General James Barta to discuss their roles and responsibilities, as well as the current legal challenges their offices are facing. The conversation delves into the intricacies of state and federal court appeals, highlighting the significant amount of work done in state courts.

In this episode of our special Regulatory Oversight: Solicitors General Insights series, Jeff Johnson, a former deputy solicitor general in the Missouri Attorney General’s office, welcomes Scott Stewart, solicitor general of Mississippi, and Matt Rice, solicitor general of Tennessee. The episode uncovers the intricacies of being a state solicitor general and the impact of their work on state and national levels.

NEW YORK – In a remarkable display of unity, a bipartisan coalition of the attorneys general for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Troutman Pepper Locke and Dominion Energy’s petition for extraordinary relief in the matter of Yoon v. Collins, which continues the fight for veterans’ denied educational benefits.

Last week, in Tennessee v. EEOC, the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision and reinstated a lawsuit by 17 states (led by the Tennessee and Arkansas attorneys general (AGs)), holding that these states have standing to sue the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over its regulations implementing the Pregnant­ Workers Fairness Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000gg. This decision deserves mention because the court seemingly made it easier to demonstrate standing by finding that the “realities facing” regulated parties can demonstrate a concrete injury even without a threat of enforcement.

Missouri’s attorney general (AG) announced on X.com (formerly Twitter) that he is “issuing a rule requiring Big Tech to guarantee algorithmic choice for social media users.” [X.com post (January 17, 2025, roughly 3:35 p.m. EST)] He intends to use his authority “under consumer protection law,” known as the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act in that state, “to ensure Big Tech companies are transparent about the algorithms they use and offer consumers the option to select alternatives.” [x.com post] The Missouri AG touts this rule as the “first of its kind” in an “effort to protect free speech and safeguard consumers from censorship.” [Press release]