Law360 (July 5, 2026, 3:01 PM EDT) -- Unlike in recent terms, very few law firms took on at least three cases at the U.S. Supreme Court this term, and one boutique dominated the pack. 

Only four firms sent attorneys before the justices three or more times during the 2025-26 term. That's compared to 11 firms that could make that claim the last time around and six firms that argued at least a trio of cases at the nation's top court during the 2023-24 term. One law firm didn't make the cut on account of timing— had it snagged its new appellate heavy hitters earlier in the term it would have secured a top spot.

Of the quartet that made this term's list of firms that argued the most before the court, one — Clement & Murphy PLLC — took the lion's share, arguing 10 cases, just shy of the 11 cases argued by the other three firms on the list combined.

One attorney, Paul D. Clement, argued nine of those cases.

That concentration of cases in the hands of such a small number of advocates is the continuation of a long-term trend, according to Matthew S. Hellman, partner and co-chair of the appellate and Supreme Court practice at Jenner & Block LLP, which argued three cases before the high court this term.

"I don't think this term is an outlier," Hellman told Law360 Pulse. "I think this term is illustrative of a trend that probably started in the '90s, so 30 years ago at this point, but is maybe even accelerating."

The fact that the court is taking fewer cases than ever — the court decided 56 cases this term, compared with around 160 per term during the 1980s — makes it even more important for petitioners looking to get before the justices to hire counsel who know the court and what it takes to get granted certiorari, according to Hellman.

"That's a relatively small group of people and a small group of firms. And the more that you do it, in a context where there aren't that many other cases, that's a real advantage," Hellman said. "When the path is that much more difficult, you want an even more experienced guide."

A 2025 academic paper backs Hellman up.

Supreme Court cases are increasingly argued by a small, elite group of attorneys who appear before the justices again and again, according to the paper by Vanderbilt Law School professor Tracey E. George, University of Toronto Faculty of Law professor Albert H. Yoon and Mitu Gulati of the University of Virginia School of Law.

"Elite law practice is getting narrower and more powerful," George told Law360 Pulse. "It's our impression that it's a smaller group of people, and they're having a much more outsized impact."

Clement & Murphy PLLC

Clement & Murphy participated in 10 Supreme Court arguments this term — by far the most of any law firm. And renowned high court litigator Clement argued nine of them himself.

The firm won six of those, with Clement earning a 5-4 opinion finding President Donald Trump can't fire Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook.

Clement also won two 7-2 rulings. In one, the justices ruled in favor of Monsanto and found that the state law claims underlying a $1.25 million jury verdict against it involving its weedkiller Roundup are barred. In another, the justices found that candidates for public office have standing to bring prospective challenges to states' election laws.

He won unanimous opinions ruling that pollution lawsuits against Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron in Louisiana belong in federal court and that freight brokers can be liable under state law for selecting unsafe motor carriers that then get into highway crashes.

However, one of the firm's most notable wins wasn't scored by Clement but by his colleague, Erin E. Murphy, who won a unanimous ruling that under the Second Amendment the government can't bar drug users from owning guns.

Clement and his firm didn't win all of their high court cases this term, however, racking up four losses.

The justices ruled 5-4 against Clement in upholding Mississippi's law allowing the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. And they were unanimous in ruling against him that Cox Communications isn't liable for its customers' music piracy, overturning a $1 billion verdict in favor of Sony and other music companies.

An 8-1 court also restored a $440 million judgment against Clement's client Royal Caribbean and several other cruise companies accused of trafficking in property seized by the Cuban government.

In a 6-3 decision, the high court said that private parties can't void contracts that allegedly violate the Investment Company Act absent some other legal dispute, ruling that Clement's client, investor Saba Capital Master Fund Ltd., can't sue FS Credit Opportunities Corp.

Clement & Murphy did not respond to a request for comment.

Williams & Connolly LLP

Williams & Connolly attorneys argued five cases before the high court this term, winning four.

Three of those victories were scored by chair of the firm's Supreme Court and appellate practice, Lisa S. Blatt, who convinced eight of the justices that criminal defendants who agree not to appeal their sentences as part of their plea deals can nevertheless still appeal if the sentence would result in a "miscarriage of justice."

Blatt also won a unanimous ruling that almost every circuit court has wrongly allowed litigants to vacate invalid judgments regardless of how long ago the judgments became final.

The justices ruled for Blatt as well when deciding that the so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a legal doctrine designed to curtail duplicative litigation, prohibits federal district courts from reviewing appeals of state court decisions, regardless of whether the state case has reached a final determination.

Blatt wasn't the only Williams & Connolly lawyer to put a win on the board this term, however.

Amy M. Saharia convinced a unanimous court that restitution is a criminal punishment subject to the Constitution's ban on increasing punishment retroactively.

The justices also ruled that subjecting defendants to separate sentences stemming from a single deadly federal firearm offense is a constitutional violation, handing a loss to Charles L. McCloud, who had been tapped to argue as court-appointed amicus since the government sided with the petitioner.

Williams & Connolly didn't respond to a request for comment.

Latham & Watkins LLP

Unlike Clement & Murphy and Williams & Connolly, Latham and Watkins LLP spread its three Supreme Court arguments across three different attorneys.

"Latham is proud to have had three different lawyers argue three different cases at the Supreme Court this term, highlighted by the exceptional contributions of our associates across the practice, including associate Nick Rosellini becoming the first associate in the firm's history to argue before the court," Roman Martinez, global chair of the firm's Supreme Court and appellate practice, told Law360 Pulse.

Rosellini came out on the losing side of a unanimous ruling in that case, which restrained federal courts' ability to review determinations from the Board of Immigration Appeals over whether the past mistreatment of asylum seekers constitutes persecution.

Gregory G. Garre won a unanimous ruling that the Fifth Circuit erred in "artificially" narrowing its analysis when allowing a lower court to block a claim by applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

Martinez, though, failed to convince the justices to uphold the constitutionality of caps on how much money political parties can spend directly on candidates' campaigns, when he was tapped to defend a lower-court ruling since the Trump administration chose not to.

"Over the past five Supreme Court terms, six different Latham lawyers have argued 18 merits cases before the court, winning landmark victories in the fields of administrative law, bankruptcy, religious freedom, tax law, international arbitration, and disability rights, among others," Martinez said.

Jenner & Block LLP

Adam G. Unikowsky juggled all three of Jenner & Block's high court cases this term, winning two and losing one.

"Adam is a force. He is known to the justices, respected by the justices," Hellman said. "Adam is a first choice among many talented Jenner advocates to be the face of that litigation and the counselor behind it."

In the term's final days, Unikowsky won a high-profile ruling that geofence warrants, which compel technology companies to turn over users' location data to law enforcement, are searches under the Fourth Amendment.

"I'd say it's one of the most closely watched Fourth Amendment cases, not just of this term, but maybe of the decade, because it goes to some far-reaching questions about the constitutional limits of digital surveillance," Hellman said.

Unikowsky also succeeded in convincing the justices that the fugitive tolling doctrine, which prevents criminal defendants from earning credits to reduce prison sentences while they're not behind bars, cannot also be used to automatically penalize defendants who abscond from supervised release.

"That is just a great example of how superior advocacy can make a real difference," Hellman said, pointing out that a majority of the circuits to consider the issue had ruled against the firm's position.

"The law as it stood in the courts of appeals was predominantly against us. And you're going up against the government, always a formidable adversary. The solicitor general's office is as good as a Supreme Court group of advocates can get. And we won the case 8-1," Hellman said.

Unikowsky and the firm came out on the losing side of a unanimous ruling that federal courts that sent a dispute to arbitration do have jurisdiction to confirm or vacate a subsequent award, a decision that affirmed the enforcement of an award issued against Unikowsky's client.

Hellman pointed out that while Unikowsky may have argued all three of the firm's high court cases this term, those cases were all team efforts.

"This is not a practice where only one or two people do the arguments for the group," Hellman said, remarking that six different lawyers at the firm have argued before the Supreme Court during the last four terms. "We pride ourselves on our team approach to really pushing hard on our conceptions of what is the winning argument and looking for ways to strengthen those arguments."

Other Notable Players 

This year's list of firms that argued the most often before the court would have had one more addition if the timing had worked out.

Jeffrey B. Wall and Morgan L. Ratner both moved from Sullivan & Cromwell LLP to Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP in April, just after each argued one case before the justices.

Ratner won her case, with the court blessing Exxon Mobil Corp.'s bid for some $1 billion in damages for property seized by the Cuban government. But Wall wasn't as successful in attempting to undo the Federal Communications Commission's authority to issue monetary penalties against clients AT&T and Verizon.

Attorneys who were already at Gibson Dunn before the addition of Wall and Ratner argued two cases at the high court this term as well.

Allyson N. Ho, co-chair of Gibson Dunn's appellate and constitutional law practice group, won her case with a unanimous opinion that a street preacher convicted of violating a Mississippi city's rule governing public protests can use a federal civil rights lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the law used to convict him.

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., though, came out on the wrong side of another unanimous opinion that freight brokers could be liable under state law for selecting unsafe motor carriers that get into crashes.

If Ratner and Wall had both made their move a little bit earlier, Gibson Dunn would have found itself on this year's list, with four cases.

The addition of Ratner and Wall, along with two other appellate lawyers, builds on Gibson Dunn's appellate practice, Thomas H. Dupree Jr., co-chair of the firm's appellate and constitutional law practice said in a statement.

"With their arrival, we now have 14 lawyers who have argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, deepening our bench for the nation's most significant appeals," Dupree added.

Methodology: A law firm's Supreme Court win-loss record is based on the outcome of cases where a member of the firm — as of the date of oral argument — argued before the court.

The scorecard includes all law firms with three or more attorney appearances at oral arguments over the course of the October 2025 term, regardless of the outcome.

As a general matter, if the Supreme Court affirms the lower court, the petitioners lose. If the Supreme court reverses or vacates the lower court ruling, in whole or in part, the petitioners win.

There are, of course, exceptions. In cases where there is not a straightforward ruling, Law360 sometimes had to weigh a range of factors, including how much of the parties' arguments the court adopted and the likely impact of the ruling, when selecting the winning side.

--Editing by Daniela Porat and Alex Hubbard.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.