Todd Kim

Previously, Todd served as the first Solicitor General of the District of Columbia, overseeing all appellate litigation for the District and personally arguing significant cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous federal and state appellate courts. Over the course of his career, he has presented oral arguments more than 60 times, including in landmark cases spanning constitutional, environmental and administrative law.

At Pillsbury, Todd advises clients across industries on complex litigation, regulatory risk and appellate strategy. He is widely recognized for his strategic judgment, courtroom advocacy and deep understanding of the courts shaping environmental law today.

• Experience as Assistant Attorney General
  • Represented the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of the Interior, and other federal agencies in matters involving climate change, environmental justice, forever chemicals, petitions for review of significant rulemakings under pollution control statutes, federal land management, and additional priority issues.
  • Handled a broad range of environmental law, natural resources law, administrative law, and Native American law issues, garnering intimate and up-to-date knowledge of the federal court system.
  • Developed a keen, practice-honed understanding of cutting-edge administrative law issues.
• Experience as Solicitor General
  • Oversaw all aspects of appellate litigation in hundreds of appeals per year in a variety of subject matters in civil, administrative, and criminal law.
  • Received multiple “Best Brief” awards from the National Association of Attorneys General.
  • Nominated to serve on the D.C. Court of Appeals.
• Select Appeals
  • Doe v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, 926 F.3d 235 (6th Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal of disparate-impact class action against health care plan)
  • District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018) (ruling that arrests were supported by probable cause under the Fourth Amendment and that officers possessed qualified immunity against liability)
  • Expedia v. District of Columbia, 120 A.3d 623 (D.C. 2015) (requiring online travel companies to pay the District of Columbia more than $60 million in sales taxes for hotel rooms they booked)
  • Heller v. District of Columbia, 801 F.3d 264 (D.C. 2015) (upholding against Second Amendment challenge the District of Columbia’s long-gun registration requirement and certain other regulations)
  • Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (rejecting a Second Amendment challenge to a handgun registration requirement and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, over a dissenting opinion (Kavanaugh, J.) that recognized “the excellent Solicitor General for D.C.”)
  • Jackson v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 999 A.2d 89 (D.C. 2010) (en banc) (upholding the rejection of an initiative to ban same-sex marriage)
  • Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 547 U.S. 715 (2006) (consolidated with Rapanos v. United States) (considering whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit for the filling of a wetland adjacent to but separated by a berm from a tributary of a navigable water)
  • Utah Ass’n of Counties v. Bush, 455 F.3d 1094 (10th Cir. 2006) (dismissing a challenge to the President’s establishment of the 1.7 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah on standing grounds)
  • Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2005) (defending a $248 million judgment to two Native American tribes against the State of New York for illegal acquisition of the tribes’ reservation)
  • United States v. Duke Energy Corp., 411 F.3d 539 (4th Cir. 2005), rev’d, 127 S. Ct. 1423 (2007) (reversing a judgment that construction projects at a utility’s coal-fired power plants did not trigger the New Source Review provisions of the Clean Air Act and thus did not require the installation of pollution controls costing hundreds of millions of dollars)
  • General Electric Co. v. EPA, 360 F.3d 188 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (considering jurisdiction to hear a constitutional challenge to the Superfund statute, brought to undermine the ongoing cleanup of massive PCB contamination in the upper Hudson River)
  • United States v. Shell Oil Co., 294 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2002) (determining liability for a $100 million cleanup of a Superfund site contaminated by the manufacture of aviation gasoline during World War II)
  • United States v. Chemetco, 274 F.3d 1154 (7th Cir. 2001) (affirming a $4 million fine levied against a corporation for criminal violations of the Clean Water Act)