Jerry Cedrone is an associate in the firm’s Complex Litigation and Dispute Resolution group and a member of its Appellate Litigation practice. Mr. Cedrone’s work focuses on appellate matters, complex commercial litigation, and life science disputes; his experience spans a range of areas, including administrative law, patent litigation, and constitutional law. Mr. Cedrone has appeared before a number of courts and tribunals around the country, including the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits, the New York Appellate Division’s First Department, the Massachusetts Superior Court, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the Board of Immigration Appeals. Throughout his time at Goodwin, he has authored and contributed to numerous briefs and dispositive motions in state and federal court, including two successful merits briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Cedrone also maintains an active pro bono practice, with recent experience in immigration law, criminal procedure, and First Amendment free-speech issues.
Before joining Goodwin in 2017, Mr. Cedrone clerked for Justice Elena Kagan of the U.S. Supreme Court and then-Judge Neil M. Gorsuch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He also served as a trial attorney with the Federal Programs Branch of the U.S. Department of Justice as a member of the Attorney General’s Honors Program. During law school, Mr. Cedrone was an executive editor of the Harvard Law Review, a finalist in the Ames Moot Court Competition, and a student volunteer with the Harvard Prison Legal Assistance Project.
Mr. Cedrone’s recent matters include the following:
- Co-authored prevailing merits briefs for the petitioner in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), in which the Supreme Court limited the federal government’s ability to deny cancellation of removal to noncitizens. In a 6–3 decision, the Court adopted the petitioner’s argument that the government must serve a “notice to appear”—the document that triggers deportation proceedings and restricts a noncitizen’s eligibility for cancellation—as a single document containing all the required information, rather than as a series of individual notices with separate pieces of information.
- Defended a public transit agency against a challenge to the agency’s use of easement rights to complete a critical infrastructure project. Following a five-day bench trial, the Massachusetts Land Court concluded that the project was within the scope of the agency’s easement and could proceed as planned. See B & W Second LLC v. MBTA, 2020 WL 4726610 (Aug. 13, 2020).
- Co-authored successful merits briefs for the petitioner in the U.S. Supreme Court in Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698 (2020), in which the Supreme Court preserved certain procedural rights for criminal defendants seeking a writ of habeas corpus. In a 7–2 decision, the Court held that a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment in a federal habeas case is not an improper “second or successive” habeas petition.
- Briefed and argued a successful immigration appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See Mendez v. Barr, 960 F.3d 80 (2020). The court reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that misprision of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4 is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.
- Co-authored briefs successfully defending an antitrust class-action settlement in an appeal raising an issue of first impression regarding the authority of insurance claims administrators to opt customers out of class settlements. See In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation, 2020 WL 2146901 (2d Cir. 2020).
- Co-authored briefs in the D.C. Circuit securing dismissal of a challenge to a shipping client’s eligibility to participate in the federal Maritime Security Program. See Matson Navigation Co. v. U.S. Department of Transportation, 895 F.3d 799 (2018).
- Represented Braeburn in a successful lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Co-authored summary-judgment briefing persuading the district court to vacate an exclusivity determination that blocked Braeburn’s new drug product BRIXADI™, a treatment for moderate to severe opioid use disorder, from receiving final approval. See Braeburn Inc. v. FDA, 389 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2019).
Harvard Law School
U.S. Supreme Court, Honorable Elena Kagan
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch
- New York
- New Jersey
- U.S. Supreme Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
- U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Recognition & Awards
Mr. Cedrone was a recommended lawyer by The Legal 500.