Scott H. Angstreich

Education

Harvard Law School, J.D., magna cum laude, 1998
- Executive Editor, 1997-1998, and Editor, 1996-1997, Harvard Law Review
Oxford University, Balliol College, M.Phil., Politics, 1995
Princeton University, A.B., summa cum laude, 1993

Clerkships

Law Clerk, Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1998-1999

Admitted

1999, New York
2001, District of Columbia

Scott Angstreich litigates regulatory matters before courts and agencies on behalf of communications companies and their trade associations, energy companies, and tech companies. He has extensive experience arguing cases in federal and state appellate courts nationwide.

Scott’s practice encompasses a wide array of regulatory, litigation, and appellate matters, with a particular focus on administrative law and telecommunications. He also advises clients on issues of compliance with complex regulatory schemes and contracts.

Scott has argued more than 50 appeals, including once before the United States Supreme Court, as well as arguments in 12 different U.S. Courts of Appeals and two state supreme courts. Scott has also argued more than 45 dispositive motions in federal district courts and state trial courts, and has served as lead trial counsel in bench trials in federal and state courts and before arbitration panels.

Representative Experience

Represents a major energy marketer before the D.C. Circuit in a successful Mobile-Sierra challenge to a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission order requiring the marketer to pay refunds for electricity sales, which the court vacated. Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. v. FERC, Nos. 22-1116 et al. (D.C. Cir. July 9, 2024).
Represents four trade associations for providers of broadband internet access service in obtaining a permanent injunction of a New York law regulating retail broadband prices and argued in defense of that ruling in Second Circuit. New York State Telecommunications Ass’n, Inc. v. James, 544 F. Supp. 3d 269 (E.D.N.Y. 2021), rev’d, 101 F.4th 135 (2d Cir. 2024).
Represents a major telecommunications company in False Claims Act cases involving allegations of 911 charge underbilling brought in 15 different jurisdictions. Argued in multiple state trial and appellate courts to obtain and defend dismissals of those actions. Eg., North Carolina ex rel. Expert Discovery, LLC v. AT&T Corp., 882 S.E.2d 660, 2022-NCCOA-837 (2022).
Represents a news publisher and obtained a dismissal of a putative class action filed in District of Columbia federal court alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Pileggi v. Washington Newspaper Publishing Co., LLC, 2024 WL 324121 (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 2024).
Represented a major telecommunications company in obtaining a declaratory ruling from the Federal Communications Commission that federal law preempts discriminatory state 911 laws and successfully argued in defending that ruling on appeal in the Eleventh Circuit. Autauga County Emergency Management Communication District v. FCC, 17 F.4th 88 (11th Cir. 2021).
Represented a provider of a major music streaming service and argued before the D.C. Circuit in a successful challenge to a Copyright Royalty Board decision, and represented that provider in administrative proceedings before the Copyright Royalty Board on remand. Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
Represented a major telecommunications company before the Seventh Circuit and successfully argued for reversal of a $50 million judgment. Peerless Network, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc., 917 F.3d 538 (7th Cir. 2019).
Represented a major telecommunications company in a successful argument before the Fifth Circuit defending a defense verdict in a fraudulent transfer suit seeking a more than $10 billion judgment. U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Verizon Communications Inc., 761 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2014).

Achievements

Thomson Reuters Stand-out Lawyer
Chambers & Partners: USA 2023: Telecom, Broadcast & Satellite: Band 2
Best Lawyers (2023): Appellate Practice and Communications Law
Business Today (2023): Top 10 Influential Telecom, Broadcast & Satellite Lawyers in DC

Articles, News & Events

The Insiders’ Guide to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Council of Appellate Lawyers, Appellate Practice Compendium (2012) (co-author, with Andrew S. Oldham)
Shoring Up Chevron: A Defense of Seminole Rock Deference to Agency Regulatory Interpretations, 34 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 49 (2000)

News

September 05, 2019

Fourth Circ. Decision a Step Toward Justice for Charleston Families

September 5, 2019— The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that survivors and family members of the victims of the 2015 Charleston church shooting can proceed with their lawsuit against the federal government for its failure to block the sale of the gun used in the tragedy. The decision reversed the trial court\'s holding that the Brady Law provided the government immunity from suit. This decision has been hailed as a monumental step toward justice. Brady, represented by Kellogg Hansen partner Scott H. Angstreich and associate Benjamin S. Softness, filed an amicus brief in support of the survivors and families and specifically focused on an analysis of the Brady Law. Mr. Softness presented oral argument on this point before the Fourth Circuit panel, which cited Brady in its decision. “As the Brady Center points out,” the court observed, “when Congress seeks to immunize the Federal Government from liability, it knows how to do so...No such grant of immunity exists here.” After the decision, Mr. Softness said, “The Brady Act gives the federal government a critical role in keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people, and we’re honored to work with Brady to make sure that responsibility is upheld. The Fourth Circuit’s ruling makes clear that the Brady Act does not allow the federal government to escape accountability for the consequences of its tragic mistake.” The case involves a failure of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and highlights a dangerous gap in the law that permits gun sales to go through after three days — even if a background check hasn’t been completed. If not for this so-called “Charleston loophole,” the shooter would not have been able to obtain the gun he used to kill nine people at the Emanuel AME Church. “Brady went to court seeking justice for the survivors and victim families of the Charleston church shooting, and we are happy to be part of the team that secured this victory,\" said Tanya Schardt, Senior Counsel for Brady. \"The court heard us loud and clear: The federal government is in no way immune from liability under the Brady Act, when it comes to this horrific tragedy, which could and should have been avoided.” ### Press Contacts: Brady | media@bradyunited.org | 202-370-8133 Kellogg Hansen | media@kellogghansen.com | 202-367-7840 ABOUT BRADYBrady has one powerful mission — to unite all Americans against gun violence. We work across Congress, the courts, and our communities with over 90 grassroots chapters, bringing together young and old, red and blue, and every shade of color to find common ground in the common sense. In the spirit of our founders Jim and Sarah Brady, we have fought for over 25 years to take action, not sides, and we will not stop until this epidemic ends. It’s in our hands. ..