Ryan P. Bates

Ryan’s practice focuses on appellate and complex commercial litigation. He has served as lead counsel in numerous appellate matters before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits, as well as courts across Texas.

After law school, Ryan clerked for the Honorable David M. Ebel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Beginning in 2007, Ryan practiced with the appellate practice group of a well-respected Texas litigation boutique before founding his own practice in late 2013.

Ryan graduated summa cum laude from Duke Law School, where he received the Willis Smith Award for best academic record and the Faculty Prize for Outstanding Achievement in Constitutional Law and Civil Rights. While at Duke, he served as Articles Editor of the Duke Law Journal and as Speaker Series Editor for the inaugural volume of the Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy, and he was elected to the Order of the Coif.

Prior to attending law school, Ryan led project teams in both software development efforts and consulting engagements across a variety of industries during seven years as a specialist in information technology.

• Lloyd Lochridge Inn of Court
• State Bar of Texas Pro Bono College

• Super Lawyers, published by Thomson Reuters, 2023-present

U.S. Supreme Court Practice

• Ricci v. DeStefano, No. 07-1428 – Drafted successful petition for certiorari and briefs on the merits in case involving city’s refusal to certify civil-service promotional lists because of race of successful candidates and fear of potential disparate-impact liability.
• Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder, No. 08-322 – Drafted successful jurisdictional statement and briefs on the merits challenging, under the City of Boerne congruence-and-proportionality test, congressional authority to reenact Voting Rights Act using same coverage formula and extending preclearance requirement duration.
• Rothgery v. Gillespie County, No. 07-440 – Drafted merits brief addressing whether Sixth Circuit right to counsel attached so as to require appointment of counsel before arraignment proceeding and bail hearing mandated by Texas law.
• Givens v. Mountain Valley Pipeline, No. 19-54 – Drafted petition for certiorari challenging “quick-take” injunctions granting immediate possession of property condemned under Natural Gas Act prior to awarding just compensation.
• Jimenez v. Texas, No. 12-117 – Served as counsel of record on petition for certiorari raising question of what quantum of proof is required to prove a constitutional actual-innocence claim on state habeas review.
• Recent S.Ct. amicus filings:
  • Cal. State Teachers’ Ret. Sys. v. Alvarez, No. 17-1695
  • Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317
  • Trevino v. Thaler, No. 11-10189
  • Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, No. 09-525

‍

Complex Commercial, Corporate & Energy Litigation

• Cimarex Energy Co. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (Tex., No. 19-0324; Tex. App., No. 08-16-00353-CV; Tex. 143rd Dist. Ct., No. 15-07-23648-CVW) – Drafted briefing at every stage of dispute over proper construction of oil and gas lease’s habendum clause.
• MuniCap, Inc. v. City of Austin (Tex. 250th Dist. Ct., No. D-1-GN-19-008456) – Briefed and argued plea to the jurisdiction and temporary injunction hearing on challenge to municipal procurement process for public advisory services.
• Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi (Del., No. 346, 2019) - On behalf of the Council of Institutional Investors, wrote and filed amicus brief arguing that adopting forum-selection provisions in Delaware corporate charters for federal securities claims exceeds the authority granted to boards of directors.
• Van Dyke v. Builders West, Inc. (Tex., No. 19-0132; Tex. App., No. 14-16-00686-CV) – Drafted merits and petition-stage briefs addressing evidentiary sufficiency, instructional error, and fees in breach-of-contract case involving house construction.
• Six Pines Exploration, LLC v. Pellegrini (Tex. App., No. 03-18-00774-CV; Tex. 459th Dist. Ct., No. D-1-GN-18-003970) – In corporate-control dispute for oil-exploration venture, briefed and argued at trial-court hearings on venue and appointment of receiver; successfully defended favorable venue ruling on appeal.
• Zheng v. Vacation Network, Inc. (Tex. App., No. 14-17-00153-CV) – Successfully defended against appeal of summary judgment on plaintiff’s fraud and statutory claims under Texas Timeshare Act.
• Cal. State Teachers’ Retirement Sys. v. Alvarez (Del., No. 295, 2016) – On behalf of the Council of Institutional Investors, wrote amicus brief in shareholder derivative litigation against Wal-Mart directors arguing against giving claim-preclusive effect to rulings in parallel proceedings that failed to first exhaust Delaware corporate books-and-records remedy.
• Burks v. XL Specialty Ins. Co. (Tex. App., No. 14-14-00740-CV) – Drafted briefing in appeal challenging insurance company’s denial of legal-defense coverage for corporate director that secured reversal of judgment against insured.
• Anglo-Dutch Petroleum Int’l, Inc. v. Case Funding Network, L.P. (Tex., No. 14-0928) – Drafted petition for review addressing proper measure of damages for breach of a settlement agreement and the requirement of materiality as an element of fraud-in-the-inducement claims.
• Anglo-Dutch Petroleum Int’l, Inc. v. Greenberg Peden, P.C. (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.], No. 14-14-00706) – Drafted appellate briefing in long-running dispute over attorney’s effort to construe his own drafting mistake in a fee agreement to require his client to pay an additional $1 million in fees.

‍

Environmental, Utility & Administrative Litigation

• Save Our Springs Alliance v. Tex. Dep’t of Transp. (W.D. Tex., No. 19-CV-00762-RP); Save Barton Creek Ass’n v. Tex. Dep’t of Transp. (W.D. Tex., No. 19-CV-00761-RP) – As outside counsel for TxDOT, defended challenges to Oak Hill highway reconstruction project under Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act.
• Crystal Clear Water Supply Corp. v. Marquez (5th Cir., No. 19-50556; W.D. Tex., No. 17-cv-00254-LY); Crystal Clear Spec. Util. Dist. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n (Tex. 53rd Dist. Ct., No. D-1-GN-16-005840) – Defended private landowner seeking release from water utility’s monopoly service area against claims that state agency order granting release violated utility’s rights under federal law.
• Padilla Constr. Co. v. Scalia (C.D. Cal., No. CV 18-1214-GW) – Second-chaired challenge to implementation by Department of Labor and Customs & Immigration Service of H-2B guest-worker program.
• Bar J-B Co. v. Tex. Dep’t of Transp. (5th Cir., No. 18-10896; N.D. Tex., No. 18-cv-00576-M) – As outside counsel for TxDOT, secured and defended on appeal denial of preliminary injunction challenging state highway construction project under National Environmental Policy Act.
• NGL Water Solutions Eagle Ford, LLC v. Railroad Comm’n (Tex. App., No. 03-17-00808-CV; Tex. 261st Dist. Ct., No. D-1-GN-17-001119) – Briefed administrative appeal from agency order denying disposal-well operator standing to challenge competitor’s permit application.
• Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Tex. Dep’t of Transp. (W.D. Tex., No. 16-CV-876-LY) – As outside counsel for TxDOT, successfully defended challenge to MoPac reconstruction project under National Environmental Policy Act.
• Lake Granbury Coalition v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality (Tex. 345th Dist. Ct., No. D-1-GN-16-005965) – Briefed administrative appeal from agency order granting Brazos River Authority the largest single water-use permit in state history as inconsistent with requirements of the Texas Water Code.
• Crystal Clear Water Supply Corp. v. General Land Office (Tex., No. 14-1010) – Served as counsel of record and principal drafter of petition- and merits-stage briefs in case raising issues of statutory construction of the Texas Water Code, as well as questions of appellate procedure in administrative appeals.
• CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC v. Public Util. Comm’n of Tex. (Tex. App.—Austin, No. 03-11-00065-CV); CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC v. Public Util. Comm’n of Tex. (Tex. App.—Austin, No. 03-10-00633-CV) – Briefed administrative appeals challenging validity of agency’s rulemaking on required energy-efficiency measures and agency’s misinterpretation and misapplication of different provision of same rule. Secured reversal of agency’s denial of multi-million-dollar rate increase as resulting from erroneous interpretation of agency’s own rule.

‍

Civil Rights & Property Rights Litigation

• Serafine v. Branaman (5th Cir., No. 14-51151; W.D. Tex., No. 11-CV-01018-LY) – Provided strategic advice and counsel, including briefing review, in First Amendment challenge to State Board of Psychology’s attempt to restrict politician’s campaign speech that resulted in overturning of overbroad and vague licensing law.
• Sanchez v. City of Austin (5th Cir., No. 13-50916; W.D. Tex., No. 11-cv-00993-LY) – Led five-person trial team in representing Occupy Austin protesters in §1983 suit against the City of Austin challenging, on First Amendment and procedural due process grounds, the city’s policy of banning arrested protestors from returning to City Hall, for any purpose, for as much as a year. After district court set it on an expedited schedule, prepared case for trial, including full discovery, in less than one month and first-chaired trial on the merits that successfully obtained a declaration that the challenged policy was facially unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against its further enforcement. Succeeded before the Fifth Circuit in reversing, as an abuse of discretion, the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees.
• In re Eagle Ford Land Partners, L.P. (Tex., No. 14-0761) – Drafted petition- and merits-stage briefing on mandamus review to compel recalcitrant pipeline company with eminent-domain authority to secure award of just compensation in favor of landowner during pendency of appeal.
• Doe v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety (5th Cir., No. 10-50383) – Drafted briefs and prepared argument in pro bono case in conjunction with Texas Civil Rights Project challenging DPS’s regulations imposing substantially greater burdens on lawfully present aliens without green cards (i.e, not lawfully permanent resident aliens) in getting driver’s licenses. On behalf of group of battered immigrant women pursuing LPR status under the Violence Against Women Act, argued that regulations were preempted by federal immigration law and VAWA and that Texas’s distinctions between LPR and non-LPR aliens were an alienage classification impermissible under the Equal Protection Clause.
• Bragg v. Edwards Aquifer Auth. (5th Cir., No. 08-50584; Tex. App.—San Antonio, No. 04-11-1816-CV); Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Day (Tex., No. 08-0964) – Represented small business owners in takings case against local water authority that denied permits for irrigation of pecan farm. On behalf of same owners, filed amicus brief in Texas Supreme Court case arguing that state law has always provided a vested interest in groundwater ownership, such that regulatory takings of groundwater rights can occur.

‍

Pro Bono Criminal Appeals

• United States v. Villagomez (5th Cir., No. 18-50004; W.D. Tex., No. 17-CR-00144-001 (SS)) - Appointed as pro bono counsel in direct criminal appeal challenging Sentencing Guidelines calculation. Secured vacatur of sentence on plain-error review. On remand, argued resentencing proceeding and convinced original sentencing judge to sharply reduce period of incarceration.
• United States v. Miller (U.S., No. 09-467; 5th Cir., Nos. 08-50409, 09-50981; W.D. Tex., No. A-06-CR-125-LY) – Appointed as pro bono counsel in direct criminal appeal challenging numerous unpreserved issues, including sufficiency of evidence to support conviction, multiplicitousness of convictions, and errors in Sentencing Guidelines application. Persuaded 5th Circuit panel to reverse on plain-error review based on multiplicitous convictions. Unsuccessfully petitioned for certiorari review of sufficiency point, arguing that the 5th Circuit’s standard of review improperly narrows Jackson v. Virginia and conflicts with the standard applied in other circuits. On remand, secured a five-year reduction in sentence for client, and successfully pursued second appeal challenging imposition of a substantial new fine at resentencing.