Partner Brad Hubbard was recently quoted in the article “Small Shareholder’s Big Challenge Falls Flat as Court Upholds SB29” in The Texas Lawbook (subscription required). The article discusses a federal judge’s dismissal of a lawsuit aimed at halting a Southwest Airlines policy change. The dismissal was the first one under SB29, an extensive modification of the Texas Business Organizations Code signed into law last year.

Brad, who with of counsel Ben Wilson and associate Jaime Barrios filed an amicus brief on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Texas Association of Business, said Judge Kinkeade’s decision was “significant” because it “provides Texas-incorporated companies a clear, judicially validated pathway to limit their exposure to costly, often rent-seeking derivative litigation.”

Paris partner Ahmed Baladi recently authored the article “GDPR Enforcement: How EU Regulators Are Shaping AI Governance” in Financier Worldwide. In the article, Ahmed highlights how the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has become a pivotal enforcement framework for AI and will continue to evolve as the technology matures. Rather than displacing the GDPR, the AI Act preserves limited overlap as part of a decentralized model.

Ahmed also discusses the Draghi Report’s recommendation for a “more proportionate and predictable implementation of EU rules” and the ensuing Digital Omnibus Agenda.

Our Litigators of the Week are Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partners Theodore Boutrous Jr., Katie Townsend and of counsel Susan Pelletier, who have represented The New York Times and national security reporter Julian Barnes in a challenge to the Trump administration’s changes to the Pentagon’s press policy.

Changes put in place in October forced any journalist holding or applying for Pentagon press credentials to sign an acknowledgement, which provided that soliciting information not approved for release by the administration could result in revocation. That move resulted in journalists at mainstream publications, including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and at more conservative-leaning outlets, including Fox News and The Daily Caller, relinquishing their credentials and leaving the Pentagon.

Last week, U.S. District Senior Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, D.C. granted summary judgment to the Times, finding the policy “fails to provide fair notice of what routine, lawful journalistic practices will result in the denial, suspension, or revocation” of credentials. Friedman ruled that the policy violated the First Amendment, as well as the Fifth Amendment right to due process.

“Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech,” the judge wrote. “That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now.”

Lit Daily: What was at stake here for the Times, its journalists and others who cover the Pentagon?

Ted Boutrous: The stakes in this case are incredibly high. As a practical matter, the case will determine whether The Times, its reporters and others will be able to report from the Pentagon, gaining real-time, accurate information to better inform the public—without submitting to a regime of government censorship. And it will do so during a time of war, when, as the district court put it, “it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing.” The case also poses a broader question fundamental to the concept of a free press: whether the government can choose who reports on it and what they publish.

The district court’s decision was an important win not only for The Times, its reporters and other journalists, but also, most importantly, for the American people who benefit from independent reporting on the Pentagon and the military.

How did this matter come to you and the firm?

Katie Townsend: Even before almost all of the Pentagon press corps surrendered their press passes and walked out as a result of the Department’s new credentialing policy, we were hearing from news organization clients concerned about steps the Department was taking to limit journalists’ access to the Pentagon, including things like evicting news organizations, like The Times, from their workspaces in the building. And after the policy was issued, I think it was natural for The Times to turn to us given our deep experience representing news organizations in high-stakes First Amendment matters and in access cases, in particular, including important wins in press credential cases for CNN and Jim Acosta and for journalist Brian Karem during the first Trump Administration.

Who was on your team and how did you divide the work? How did the folks from Yale Law School’s Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic get involved?

Susan Pelletier: Our success in this matter reflects close collaboration with an incredible team, both inside and outside of Gibson Dunn. We benefited greatly from the insights of The Times’s Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel David McCraw and Vice President and Assistant General Counsel Dana Green. And we were fortunate that First Amendment expert David Schulz and the Yale’s Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic, who represent the Pentagon Press Association, supported our position as amici.

Within Gibson, Ted Boutrous and Katie Townsend led our efforts, drawing on their extensive expertise and experience handling press access and credentialing matters. The team came from three different offices with every team member contributing to just about every aspect of the matter.In addition to building and refining our legal arguments, members of the team were able to own different parts of the record and respond in real-time to changing facts, including the military actions in Venezuela and Iran, and the Department’s actions with respect to the press in response to those developments. We are grateful to partner Lee Crain, as well as associates Zachary Freund, Eric Brooks, Chase Weidner, Tamara Skinner, Raleigh Cavero, Apratim Vidyarthi and McKenzie Robinson.

The government repeatedly argued that the policy merely incorporated existing criminal prohibitions for officials within the government and pointed to its own efforts to negotiate with the Pentagon press corps about these policies before they were implemented. How did you counter their framing of the case?

Townsend: To be clear, the Department’s policy did not merely incorporate existing federal criminal law. The policy, on its face, gave Department officials the uncabined discretion to suspend, revoke or not renew a journalist’s press credential simply for engaging in lawful, routine newsgathering–everyday activities like asking questions of Department personnel were, under the policy, purportedly improper “solicitation” that could result in the loss of a press credential. As we argued, and as Judge Friedman expressly concluded, asking questions and “soliciting” information is what journalists do and there is nothing improper let alone unlawful about it. I think the opinion says it best: “… a journalist asking questions is not a crime!”

During oral arguments earlier this month, Judge Friedman pressed hard on hypotheticals involving routine journalism—asking questions, running tip lines, publishing stories. How important was it to ground your argument in real-world reporting practices?

Boutrous: The Department was treating the very newsgathering and reporting activities that journalists engage in every day as a basis for revoking or denying a press credential. It was vital that we show how the policy would apply to these routine reporting methods, which the Supreme Court has said are protected, to establish the severity of its incursion into reporters’ First Amendment rights, and the harm to their ability to gather and report important information of public concern to the American people, especially during wartime.

The government’s attempt to distinguish Laura Loomer’s tip line from the Washington Post’s clearly caught the judge’s attention. How did that contrast and the government’s promotion of “the next generation of the Pentagon press corps” who signed on under the new rules strengthen your viewpoint discrimination argument?

Pelletier: The Department’s different treatment of the two tip lines was clear evidence that officials were enforcing the policy against only those journalists whose editorial viewpoint they disagreed with, and that the policy was specifically designed to give them unbridled discretion to do so. We were able to show that this and other examples of discriminatory treatment aligned with Department officials’ statements deeming organizations whose reporting they disliked “biased” and “garbage” and calling for them to be punished, while celebrating news organizations they perceived as willing to publish only the information and perspectives that officials agreed with.

You relied on declarations from veteran national security reporters and former Pentagon officials. What role did those voices play in establishing that this policy was a break from historical norms?

Boutrous: The perspectives of veteran Pentagon reporters and press officials were at the core of our case. Through their stories, we built a strong record demonstrating the longstanding history of press access to the Pentagon—indeed, journalists were there from the very first day that the Pentagon opened its doors. Throughout that time, reporters operated independently, pressing officials with difficult questions in search of the truth, and even when they published stories critical of a given administration or the Department, there was never a threat to their credentials. These individuals’ experiences established that the presence of independent journalists in the complex is entirely consistent with protecting safety and national security. That undermined the government’s pretextual rationale for its policy. The declaration from veteran journalist Pete Williams—who, in addition to reporting on the Department of Justice and Supreme Court for nearly 30 years, also served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs when Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense—brought into focus the benefits that this tradition provides to the Department itself in getting accurate information to the public.

Times journalists and others in the Pentagon press corps who have not signed onto the new rules lacked Pentagon access during the military’s operations in Venezuela and Iran. Do you have a grasp on how this policy has affected coverage of these conflicts?

Townsend: It goes without saying that the lack of credentials hasn’t stopped journalists including, especially, the incredible journalists at The Times from reporting on the Department and keeping the American public informed. They have continued to break stories and provide fulsome, fact-based coverage about the military action in Venezuela and the ongoing war in Iran. That said, as we detailed in our briefing, it is a significant detriment to those journalists and, in turn, to the American public to be shut out of the Pentagon. Having journalists regularly present on Pentagon grounds enables them to quickly gather information and provide the public with a more in-depth, nuanced understanding of military operations. As The Times’s Julian Barnes told the court in his declaration, being on Pentagon grounds has been integral to his reporting over the years, and it would have been immensely valuable to the reporting efforts of him and his colleagues at The Times to have been at the Pentagon, for example, in the lead-up to and at the time the operation in Venezuela was carried out.

Since the decision, the Pentagon has announced that reporters will be moved to an annex and will require escorts to enter the building. Does the Times intend to challenge that move?

Boutrous: Yes. On Tuesday, we filed in the district court a motion to compel compliance with the court’s order and, in that motion, we challenged this new and unprecedented unconstitutional restriction. The Department has, in effect, excluded all reporters from accessing the building with the obvious intent of retaliating against The Times and getting around the court’s ruling. We’ve asked the court to enforce its judgment directing the Department to reinstate The Times’s reporters’ PFACs under the policy as it stood after the court vacated the unconstitutional provisions. The judge has scheduled a hearing on Monday morning on our motion.

What will you remember most about this matter?

Boutrous: For me, it was during the hearing on our cross-motions for summary judgment, when Judge Friedman so eloquently spoke about the role of the press over the years during wars (quoted in the opinion’s conclusion), and the attorney representing the Department said that he agreed with everything the judge had said.

Townsend: Reading the district court’s decision for the first time. It is such a powerful recognition of the importance of a free and independent press to democracy. It felt like a vindication not only of our legal arguments but also of the principles that The Times filed this lawsuit to defend.

Pelletier: The conversations we had with current and former Pentagon reporters while building the record will stay with me long after this case ends. Hearing them describe their work in their own words gave me a deeper understanding of the dedication and expertise they bring to bear in service of the public every day, and of what we lose every day they are shut out.

Reprinted with permission from the March 27, 2026 edition of “The AmLaw Litigation Daily” © 2026 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.

Gibson Dunn represented J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, as lead dealer manager and solicitation agent, and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Fifth Third Securities, Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Truist Securities, Inc., and U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc., as co-dealer managers and solicitation agents, in connection with (i) an exchange offer for AMC Networks Inc. to exchange any and all of AMC’s outstanding 10.25% Senior Secured Notes due 2029 (Old Notes) for its newly issued 10.50% Senior Secured Notes due 2032 and (ii) the solicitation of consents from holders of the Old Notes with respect to an amendment to the indenture governing the Old Notes. The early settlement closed on March 13, 2026, and the final settlement closed on March 25, 2026. 

The Gibson Dunn capital markets team included partners Doug Horowitz and Doug Rayburn and associates Victoria Dodev, Alexis Levine, and Caroline Simms. Partner Jennifer Sabin, of counsel Kate Long, and associate Eugene Woo advised on tax aspects; partner Cassandra Gaedt-Sheckter and associates Sarah Scharf and Amanda Estep advised on cybersecurity; partner Meghan Hungate advised on intellectual property; and partner Christopher Timura advised on regulatory aspects.

Partner Angelique Kaounis and of counsel Joseph Gorman have published “High-Tech Stakes (2010), Revisited” in Los Angeles Lawyer — a commentary on Kaounis’s original 2010 article addressing the challenges of handling confidential information in potential technology-focused acquisitions. The authors reflect that the article’s core insight that “transaction-related decisions can be litigated years later, often through reconstructed paper trails” has been repeatedly validated.

Partner Jane Horvath has contributed the article “China Signals New Era in Data Governance” (subscription required after March 31, 2026) to the Dow Jones Risk Journal. She writes that the new strategy puts tough restrictions on sensitive data but eases the flow of routine data: “This year has brought a more nuanced ‘High Fences, Small Yard’ approach from the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC). The strategy involves imposing stringent, near-impenetrable restrictions on a narrow subset of strategically sensitive data, while easing the flow of routine commercial information to preserve economic vitality.

Partners Colin Davis, Jonathan Fortney, Julia Lapitskaya, and Jason Mendro, of counsel Mark Mixon, Jr., and associate Russell Shapiro authored the article “Delaware Supreme Court Reverses and Vacates Moelis as Time-Barred” for Insights [PDF]. They write that the opinion avoided reaching the merits of a controversial trial-court decision already addressed by the Delaware General Assembly.

Insights published the article “Five Years of Evolving Form 10-K Human Capital Disclosures” [PDF] by partners Mellissa Campbell Duru, Julia Lapitskaya, and Mike Titera and associates Jill Refvem, Meghan Sherley, and Kriti Hannon. It looks at disclosures from the S&P 500 during the five years following the adoption of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules.

A Gibson Dunn team led by partner Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. scored a decisive win for The New York Times in its challenge of the constitutionality of the Trump administration’s new Pentagon press policy governing the issuance, denial, and revocation of press credentials at the Pentagon.

The policy gave Department of Defense officials unfettered discretion to revoke or deny a reporter’s press credential if they determined that the reporter posed a “safety or security risk,” expressly allowing that determination to be based on the reporter’s newsgathering or reporting of Department-related information that was not officially approved for publication.

In its decision, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion for summary judgment filed by The Times and its reporter Julian Barnes, holding that the Department’s policy violated the First and Fifth Amendments. The Court vacated the policy’s unconstitutional provisions and entered an injunction requiring the Department to immediately reinstate Times reporters’ credentials.

The decision, said Ted Boutrous, “is a powerful rejection of the Pentagon’s effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war. As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause, but also the founding principle that the nation’s security depends upon a free press. The district court’s opinion is not just a win for The Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon.”

The winning Gibson Dunn team included partners Katie Townsend and Lee Crain, of counsel Susan Pelletier, and associates Zachary Freund, Eric Brooks, Chase Weidner, Tamara Skinner, Raleigh Cavero, and Apratim Vidyarthi.

The Legal 500 EMEA 2026 has recommended Gibson Dunn in 32 categories in Belgium, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and UAE. The firm was recognized in Competition – EU and Global in Belgium; Administrative and Public Law, Banking and Finance: Transactional Work, Data Privacy and Data Protection, Derivatives and Structured Finance, Dispute Resolution – Commercial Litigation, Employment, Industry Focus: Energy, Industry Focus – IT and the Internet, Insolvency, Mergers and Acquisitions, Private Equity: LBO, Project Finance, and Tax in France; Antitrust, Compliance, Compliance – Internal Investigations, Corporate, Corporate – M&A Large Deals, Corporate – M&A Mid-Size Deals, Dispute Resolution – Commercial Litigation, Private Equity – Transactions: Mid-sized Deals (€100m – €500m), and Trade and Distribution – Foreign Trade Law in Germany; Banking and Finance, Capital Markets, and Commercial, Corporate and M&A in Saudi Arabia; and Banking and Finance: Corporate Finance, Capital Markets, Corporate and M&A, Investment Fund Formation and Management, Infrastructure and Projects, and Oil, Gas and Natural Resources in UAE.

Dubai partner Marwan Elarabi, Abu Dhabi partner Renad Younes, and Paris partner Jean-Pierre Farges were recognized in The Legal 500’s Hall of Fame. Brussels partner Christian Riis-Madsen; Dubai partner Caro Abram; Munich partner Benno Schwarz; Paris partners Amanda Bevan de-Bernède, Darko Adamovic, Ahmed Baladi, Pierre-Emmanuel Fender, Nataline Fleury, Dorothée Griveaux, and Vera Lukic; and Riyadh partner Jonathan Langley were all recognized as Leading Partners. Dubai partners Jade Chu and Sameera Kimatrai, Paris partner Alex Bluett, Riyadh partners Ibrahim Soumrany and Najla Al-Gadi, and Munich partner Katharina Humphrey were listed as Next Generation Partners. Paris of counsel Vincent Poilleux, Abu Dhabi associate Andrea Calla, and Dubai associate Omar Morsy were listed as Leading Associates. 

The guide was published on March 25, 2026.

Writing for Tax Notes [PDF], partner Saul Mezei and of counsel John Craig analyze the Israel Tax Authority’s practice of inferring taxable intangible-property transfers from post-acquisition changes in the target’s functions, assets, and risks. They argue that while such changes can assist in identifying and pricing specific intercompany transactions, they should not serve as a shortcut that results in imputing enterprise-level value transfers based on post-acquisition outcomes.

Partners Jason Schwartz and Cynthia Chen McTernan and associates Cate McCaffrey, Elvys Morales, and Shreya Sarin have written the Corporate Governance Advisor [PDF] article “Texas Attorney General Declares Public DEI Initiatives Unconstitutional and Warns of Legal Risks from Corporate DEI” (May/June 2026), where they discuss a DEI opinion issued by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Gibson Dunn Chair and Managing Partner Barbara Becker recently spoke with Law.com International [PDF] about the firm’s rapid growth in London and how the office has become a true hub, enabling us to bring our full platform to clients across Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and beyond.

The article also looks at the firm’s future expansion plans in London and Europe and explores how Gibson Dunn is achieving this growth and what’s driving it: a combination of exceptional lateral and homegrown talent, and a clear focus on client demand.

Why Gibson Dunn? Why London? Why M&A and private equity? Associate Magdalena Augé shares with ICAEW’s Corporate Financier magazine the reasons she chose to join Gibson Dunn’s London transactional team as the next step in her career.

“Gibson Dunn really appealed as its transactional team was expanding. In 2022, they had just hired new partners, and I was excited by the idea of being part of that growth,” Magdalena said, adding: “The firm puts an emphasis on making sure new recruits truly fit with its culture of cooperation, collaboration, and openness – this weighed heavily when making my decision.”

The Compliance Week article “The Dos and Don’ts of Responding to a World Bank Integrity Audit” (subscription required) features commentary from partner Oleh Vretsona and of counsel Pedro Soto. The article discusses the World Bank Group updating its Integrity Compliance Guidelines for the first time in 15 years.

Gibson Dunn advised Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company on its offering of $2 billion in senior notes.

The firm’s corporate team was led by partner Andrew Fabens and included associates Lawrence Lee, Ian Mathenge, and Chad Kang. Partner Jennifer Sabin advised on tax aspects.

The Financial News article, “Secondaries were once an ‘ugly stepchild’. Now lawyers are swamped with job offers” (subscription required) features commentary by partner James O’Donnell about the growing demand for lawyers with secondaries market expertise.

“Everybody is looking for secondaries expertise,” James said. “It used to be that we all felt very happy being described as funds lawyers. Now people want to brand themselves as secondaries lawyers instead.”

The Financial News reports that record deal activity in the $240 billion secondaries market is fuelling a hiring frenzy, but specialists are in short supply.

Gibson Dunn is a finalist for Law Firm of the Year at the prestigious City AM Awards 2026, which celebrate the exceptional leadership and innovation of the City of London in driving the UK’s economy forward.

The firm was shortlisted in recognition of its significant growth over the past year: globally, 42 colleagues were promoted to partner, 31 lateral partners were welcomed, and over 350 associates and of counsel joined the firm. This growth is also reflected in the work of the firm, with more than 1,150 announced or closed transactional deals with an aggregate value exceeding $890 billion.

Gibson Dunn advised a group of sales agents and forward purchasers on an at-the-market offering of up to $1 billion of common stock of Alliant Energy Corporation, a public utility holding company that provides regulated electric and natural gas service to customers in the Midwest.

Our team included partner Andrew Fabens, of counsel Rodrigo Surcan and Adam Lapidus, and associates Lawrence Lee and Ian Mwiti Mathenge. Partner William R. Hollaway Ph.D. and senior counsel Janine Durand advised on regulatory matters. Partner Rachel Levick and associate Taylor Amato advised on environmental matters.

A Gibson Dunn pro bono team secured a unanimous victory at the U.S. Supreme Court on March 20, 2026, in Olivier v. City of Brandon et al., a civil rights case in which our team was supported by a diverse coalition of 11 amicus briefs.

Gabriel Olivier, an evangelical Christian, shared his faith on a public sidewalk near the City of Brandon, Mississippi’s amphitheater during well-attended events. He was silenced when the City adopted an ordinance prohibiting him from communicating his religious beliefs on the public sidewalk, and then arrested him for violating the ordinance by continuing to share his faith. After paying a fine, he sued the city in federal court, challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance.

The district court dismissed his lawsuit without considering the merits, relying on a Supreme Court decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has applied to prevent persons convicted under a law from challenging the constitutionality of that law. The Fifth Circuit affirmed and then declined to revisit its past precedent by a narrow one-vote margin over vigorous dissents.

The Supreme Court justices unanimously agreed that the previous Supreme Court decision does not bar legal challenges such as Olivier’s. Writing for the full court, Justice Elena Kagan said that the previous decision “has no bearing on Olivier’s suit seeking a purely prospective remedy.”

“We’re delighted that the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Gabe’s right to his day in court,” said Gibson Dunn partner Allyson Ho, who presented oral arguments for Olivier before the Supreme Court in December 2025. “It’s just common sense that a citizen who is arrested under an unconstitutional law should be able to challenge that law. As people of faith, we look to the judiciary to protect our constitutional right to spread the gospel.”

Along with Allyson, our team included partner David Casazza and associates Aaron Smith, Patrick Fuster, Giuliana Carozza Cipollone, Jack Reed, Aly Cox, Andrew Ebrahem, and Savannah Silver.