M. Miller Baker

Photo of M. Miller Baker

M. Miller Baker focuses his practice on complex civil litigation and serves as co-head of the Firm’s Appellate Practice Group. Miller has represented or advised clients in numerous appeals in federal and state courts involving a broad range of matters, including constitutional law, administrative law, state and federal tax, Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), patent, copyright, environmental law, food and drug act, Medicare, false claims, state and federal election law, class actions, preemption, federal practice and jurisdiction, unfair competition, antitrust, securities, bankruptcy and insurance coverage. He has argued before the US Supreme Court (three times, and winning each time), nine of the thirteen federal courts of appeals, state appellate courts in Florida, New York and Maryland, and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Read M. Miller Baker's full bio.

Latest Articles

On December 19, 2018, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of McDermott’s client, the Healthcare Distribution Alliance (HDA), the trade association for pharmaceutical distributors. In Healthcare Distribution Alliance v. Zucker, the court granted summary judgment and enjoined enforcement of the New York Opioid Stewardship Act, which imposed a $600 million surcharge on manufacturers and distributors of opioid pharmaceutical products. The first $100 million installment was due on…
ERISA broadly preempts state laws that “relate to” ERISA-governed employee benefit plans to ensure a uniform federal regulatory scheme and to relieve ERISA plans from the burdens of satisfying a patchwork of state laws. Recently, however, several states have enacted legislation designed to regulate the prices that pharmacy benefit managers, as third-party administrators for ERISA-governed plans, agree to reimburse pharmacies for dispensing prescription drugs to ERISA plan members. These regulations run afoul of ERISA, as…
On October 28, 2016, the US Supreme Court (Supreme Court) granted certiorari in the case of Gloucester County Sch. Bd. V. G.G., No. 16-273, which involves a dispute as to whether an unpublished letter by a Department of Education (Department) official purporting to interpret the agency’s regulatory interpretation relating to discrimination on the basis of sex is entitled to Auer deference. The petition for writ of certiorari specifically asked the Court to consider three questions:…