Danielle Spinelli was a nationally recognized appellate advocate and litigator. She argued seven cases before the US Supreme Court and briefed many others, as well as briefing and arguing many cases before federal courts of appeals and district courts. Ms. Spinelli had one of the country’s leading bankruptcy appellate practices: she successfully argued four bankruptcy cases in the US Supreme Court, including two of the most important Chapter 11 cases of recent years, and repeatedly prevailed in the courts of appeals on behalf of creditors challenging their treatment in bankruptcy. She was also a nationally recognized Native American law practitioner who successfully represented tribal clients in multiple complex litigation matters and appeals. She successfully handled matters in many other areas, including administrative law, antitrust, commercial law, constitutional law, criminal law and procedure, federal jurisdiction and preemption, insurance law, international trade, and trademark law. Ms. Spinelli was nationally ranked in appellate and Native American law by Chambers USA, which described her as “utterly brilliant” and someone who “thinks things through in a way that eludes most lawyers.”

As noted, Ms. Spinelli had substantial experience in disputes and appeals raising complex bankruptcy problems in both the business and consumer arenas. In the US Supreme Court, she successfully argued Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology, LLC (2019), which held that a trademark licensee does not lose its right to use the mark when the licensor rejects the license agreement in bankruptcy, resolving a fundamental and long-standing question about the nature and effect of rejection. She also successfully argued on behalf of priority creditors in Czyzewski v. Jevic Transportation Co. (2017), which held that a structured dismissal may not distribute estate assets in violation of the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme. She also successfully argued Clark v. Rameker (2014), holding that inherited IRAs are not exempt in bankruptcy, and Bank of America v. Caulkett (2015), holding that Chapter 7 debtors may not strip off underwater junior liens on their houses. Also in the Supreme Court, she played a major role in the successful representation of the Marshall estate in Stern v. Marshall (2011), a watershed decision on Article III and bankruptcy court authority. In the courts of appeals, she successfully represented secured creditors challenging their treatment under Chapter 11 plans in a trio of cases stemming from the Momentive Performance Materials, EFIH and Houston Regional Sports Network bankruptcies. She also represented a major insurer in a series of appeals involving novel questions at the intersection of Chapter 11 and insurance law, including prevailing before the en banc Third Circuit on the question of insurer standing.

Ms. Spinelli also had substantial experience representing Native American tribes in complex litigation, appeals and administrative proceedings involving land-into-trust, gaming, jurisdictional and sovereign immunity issues. She argued before the Supreme Court in United States v. Tohono O'odham Nation (2011), involving jurisdiction over tribal breach of trust claims. Separately, she represented the nation in a series of lawsuits and appeals involving its planned $400 million gaming facility, including successfully invalidating an Arizona state statute on preemption grounds, successfully obtaining summary judgment in a contract suit against the nation and preserving both victories on appeal. In May 2017, she obtained a settlement for the nation enabling it to operate the disputed facility. She also represented many other tribes in proceedings related to land-into-trust and gaming issues. For instance, she won summary judgment for the Spokane Tribe in a challenge to a determination to take land into trust for gaming purposes, she helped obtain summary judgment for the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians in a similar challenge and then preserved that victory on appeal, and she assisted in obtaining Secretarial procedures to govern Class III gaming for North Fork and for the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria.

Ms. Spinelli had an active pro bono practice focused largely on death-penalty and juvenile justice issues. In the US Supreme Court, she argued Mathena v. Malvo (pending), involving life-without-parole sentences for juveniles. She also successfully argued the right-to-counsel case of Rothgery v. Gillespie County (2008). She played a lead role in the successful representation of Robert McCoy in McCoy v. Louisiana (2018), which held that the Sixth Amendment bars a lawyer from admitting his client’s guilt without the client’s consent, and in the successful representation of Freddie Lee Hall in Hall v. Florida (2014), striking down Florida's scheme for determining whether capital defendants have an intellectual disability that would bar their execution. She also played a major role in the successful representation of Chris Simmons in Roper v. Simmons (2005), which held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of juvenile offenders, and represented the American Psychological Association as amicus in the subsequent cases of Graham v. Florida (2010) and Miller v. Alabama (2012), which limited life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders.

Professional Activities

• Appointed by Chief Justice to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules, 2017–present
• Fellow, American College of Bankruptcy, 2018–present (for distinguished contributions to the bankruptcy and restructuring field)
• Fellow, American Bar Foundation, 2018–present
• Chair, American Bar Association Standing Committee on Amicus Curiae Briefs, 2015–2018 (Member, 2012–2015)
• Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law School, 2018 (taught bankruptcy)
• Member, National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges Education Committee, 2018–2019
• Co-Chair, Bankruptcy Appeals Subcommittee, American Bar Association Business Bankruptcy Committee, 2014–present