Subscribe

  • How Can We Help You?

    Global Problem Solving from Covington: Deal with Complex Problems Anywhere in the World

David M. Zionts

Partner

Washington +1 202 662 5987

  • About
  • Representative Matters
  • Credentials
  • About

    David Zionts is an appellate litigator and international lawyer. He handles high-stakes appeals across a range of subject matters, and regularly works on transnational disputes and issues of international law that arise in both U.S. and international tribunals.

    David has litigated matters of constitutional law, administrative law, and statutes including the Anti-Terrorism Act, Alien Tort Statute, and Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. He has successfully represented companies, individuals, and foreign sovereigns before:

    • The Supreme Court of the United States, where he has represented clients at both merits and certiorari stages;
    • Federal and state courts of appeals, where David has argued numerous appeals;
    • District courts, where he has delivered arguments and crafted winning dispositive motions; and
    • International tribunals including the International Court of Justice, where David has argued as an advocate on behalf of a sovereign.

    David also maintains an active pro bono practice, and has led litigation efforts in high-profile cases concerning immigration, transgender rights, reproductive rights, voting rights, and others.

    Before joining the firm, David was a law clerk to Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court, and to Judge Merrick B. Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He also served at the U.S. Department of State as special advisor to the Legal Adviser Harold Hongju Koh.

    David has been named a Rising Star by both the National Law Journal and Law360.

    Areas of Expertise

  • Practices and Industries
  • Representative Matters

    Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals

    • Represented Deutsche Bank in winning dismissal of civil Anti-Terrorism Act claims. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of U.S. service members killed or injured in militia attacks in Iraq, who sought to use regulatory settlements concerning Iranian bank transactions as a basis to impose ATA liability. David crafted a successful motion to dismiss strategy and argued the case in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, leading to complete dismissal for failure to state a claim in a decision that has become a leading case under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
    • Represented a foreign sovereign in successfully asserting its sovereign immunity in a lawsuit alleging cyberespionage. A Los Angeles businessman accused our client of being responsible for a hack of his computer systems and the publication of unflattering information about him. Our team defended our client’s immunity from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and David argued the appeal before the Ninth Court of Appeals, which picked up on David’s emphasis of the FSIA’s “discretionary function” provision and held that the complaint improperly sought to challenge alleged discretionary actions of a sovereign.
    • Represented Fifth Third Bancorp in the Supreme Court, which vacated an adverse decision against the bank and adopted requirements for plaintiffs attempting to sue fiduciaries of Employee Stock Ownership Plans under ERISA.
    • Represented Bayer as an intervenor before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals defending a favorable decision of the Food and Drug Administration. Bayer’s predecessor received FDA approval to switch MiraLAX from prescription to over-the-counter, and after extensive regulatory proceedings, FDA withdrew approval from generic competitors that had refused to withdraw their prescription versions from the market. David successfully defended Bayer’s victory in the D.C. Circuit.

    • Represented Salix Pharmaceuticals in a False Claims Act (FCA) employee retaliation case before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Arguing before the Second Circuit, David persuaded the court that nearly all of the allegations did not involve protected activity under the statute, and secured language that on one remaining ground the requirement of causation was not met, leading to a quick dismissal of all claims on remand.
    • Representing F. Hoffmann-La Roche in litigation under the Anti-Terrorism Act in the federal district court in D.C. and in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hundreds of Iraq war veterans accused pharmaceutical companies of facilitating terrorism in Iraq through dealings with that country’s Iraqi Ministry of Health. David secured a decision from the district court dismissing all claims and continues to represent Roche on the plaintiffs’ appeal.
    • Representing Bacardi in district court proceedings concerning rights to the trademark for HAVANA CLUB rum, a dispute growing out of a violent confiscation by the Cuban government.

    International Tribunals

    • Representing the Government of Ukraine in a number of international disputes with the Russian Federation growing out of its unlawful actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine beginning in 2014. David has argued twice in the International Court of Justice on behalf of Ukraine. The cases include:
      • A case in the International Court of Justice alleging violations by Russia of treaties on the financing of terrorism and racial discrimination, and addressing a wave of violence in Ukraine including the shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17. Following hearings in The Hague, our team won an order of provisional measures of protection for the Crimean Tatar people, and then completely defeated Russia’s challenges to the Court’s jurisdiction, making it the first case of its kind to proceed to the merits.
      • A case before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as well as an arbitral tribunal challenging Russia’s arrest and detention of three naval vessels and 24 sailors on board in the Black Sea. By a decisive 19-1 vote, with only the Russian judge dissenting, our team won an historic order for the release of the vessels and sailors, all of whom have now been returned to Ukraine.
      • A case before an arbitral tribunal under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea addressing Russia’s unlawful conduct in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait. David argued at a jurisdictional hearing, after which the tribunal permitted Ukraine’s case to continue to the merits phase.

    Areas of Expertise

  • Credentials
    Education
    • Harvard Law School, J.D., 2008
        • magna cum laude
        • Fay Diploma
        • Sears Prize
        • Harvard Law Review, Articles Chair
    • Columbia University, B.A., 2005
        • summa cum laude
        • Phi Beta Kappa
    Bar Admissions
    • District of Columbia
    Judicial Clerkship
    • Hon. Stephen G. Breyer, Supreme Court of the United States, 2010 - 2011
    • Hon. Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 2008 - 2009
    Pro Bono
    • Represented at the Supreme Court individuals who were subjected to immigration detention in harsh conditions after 9/11 without individualized suspicion of involvement in terrorism.
    • Represented the City of Los Angeles in a series of cases challenging the U.S. Justice Department’s efforts to impose on so-called “sanctuary cities” immigration-related conditions on federal grants.  Our team secured several injunctions against Justice Department grant conditions, and David argued an early appeal on the issue in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
    • Represented Planned Parenthood in challenging a federal regulation by the Department of Health and Human Services.  The agency issued a rule that would have burdened health providers’ ability to address employees who refuse to provide care to patients.  David argued before the Southern District of New York in a successful effort to enjoin the rule as exceeding the agency’s authority.
    • Represented Pennsylvania chapters of the NAACP and League of Women Voters, as well as several individual voters, as intervenors in a challenge to election results brought by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.  David presented oral argument in the district court that stressed the perspective of Pennsylvania voters that the case sought to disenfranchise.  Adopting the arguments of our clients and other parties, the district court rejected as unfounded the effort to “disenfranchise almost seven million voters.”  David then led briefing for the same civil rights organizations on appeal to the Third Circuit, which unanimously affirmed. 
    Accolades
    Memberships and Affiliations
    • Edward Coke Appellate Inn of Court
    Previous Experience
    • U.S. Department of State, Special Advisor to the Legal Adviser (2011-2012)

    Areas of Expertise

News and Insights

Events