Skip to content

Government Litigation

With more than 50 years of experience in government litigation matters, our attorneys have litigated with more than 35 federal government agencies, 45 state government agencies, and 30 local/city/municipal government agencies.

Overview

Thompson & Knight has more than 50 years of experience in government litigation matters. In court and in administrative proceedings, the Firm’s attorneys have litigated with more than 35 federal government agencies, 45 state government agencies, and 30 local/city/municipal government agencies.

Litigating with the government is difficult. Whether in the courtroom or in front of an agency, a special type of experience is necessary to succeed. Thompson & Knight understands and has more than 50 years of experience in this area. In court and in administrative proceedings, the Firm’s attorneys have litigated with more than 35 federal government agencies, 45 state government agencies, and 30 local/city/municipal government agencies.

Thompson & Knight’s federal practice includes disputes with agencies from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Transportation, and everything in between. At the state level, we have litigated against virtually every major Texas agency and numerous smaller ones. At the local level, we have either sued or defended suits involving cities large and small, and have represented taxpayers across the state in challenging appraisal district actions.

35

Have litigated with more than 35 federal government agencies

45

Have litigated with more than 45 state government agencies

30

Have litigated with more than 30 local/city/municipal government agencies

Experience

  • Represented the Laredo Merchants Association in a key win before the Texas Supreme Court, in which the Court found that the City of Laredo’s ordinance banning single-use plastic and paper bags in its retail stores is preempted by a state law that is part of the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act
  • Represented a company involved in the multistate operation of truck stops in a Section 1983 action
  • Handled First Amendment commercial free speech issues in a case involving zoning and signage matters
  • Represented a homebuilder in a threatened EPA nationwide enforcement action alleging non-compliance with federal regulations governing discharges of storm water
  • Represented a client in aircraft taxation litigation, contesting the taxable value of the aircraft
  • Represented a homebuilder in a potential lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers concerning classification of property as wetlands
  • Represented the owner of several office buildings in contesting their property tax valuations
  • Represented a client in a condemnation matter in which the client sought compensation for the value of its leasehold interest after the Department of Transportation had originally taken the position that it had already paid all necessary compensation to the landlord
  • Have represented physicians in licensing and disciplinary matters before the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners
  • Represented property owners in a suit alleging that a city had unconstitutionally taken property by requiring payment of funds to build a road as a condition to approving a proposed development on their property

Representative reported decisions for our government litigation attorneys include:

  • Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of the Southwest v. Federal Trade Commission, 85 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 1996). (Defended acquisition of additional brand soft-drink assets as not lessening competition.)
  • Comdisco, Inc. v. Tarrant County Appraisal Dist., 927 S.W.2d 325 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1996, writ ref’d). (Defended against liability for property taxes on constitutional and statutory bases)
  • Crisp v. United States, 34 Fed. Cl. 112 (1995). (Sought summary judgment in trustee’s suit to recover tax refund for income taxes allegedly overpaid)
  • Edgewood Independent School Dist. v. Meno, 917 S.W.2d 717 (Tex. 1995). (Regarding a litigation involving state funding of public education)
  • Jesuit College Preparatory School v. Judy, 231 F. Supp. 2d 520 (N.D. Tex 2002). (Challenged the UIL ban on private school membership on behalf of Jesuit College Preparatory School)
  • Rylander v. B&A Marketing, 997 S.W.2d 326 (Tex. App.-Austin 1999, no pet.). (Statute enabling assessment of additional tax on corporation after dissolution was found constitutional)
  • State of Texas v. Operating Contractors, 985 S.W.2d 646 (Tex. App.-Austin 1999, pet. denied). (Defended TNRCC from a takings claim arising out of the shutdown of an automobile emissions inspection and monitoring program)
  • Supreme Beef Processors, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture, 275 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2001). (Challenged USDA food inspection regulations on behalf of a major trade association)
  • Texaco, Inc. v. Commissioner, 98 F.3d 825 (5th Cir. 1996). (Commissioner of Internal Revenue did not have authority to reallocate corporation’s income)
  • Methodist Hospitals of Dallas v. Texas Industrial Accident Board, 798 S.W.2d 651 (Tex. App.-Austin 1990, writ dism’d w.o.j.). (Challenged regulations adopted by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission as procedurally defective)