Pro Bono Innovators 2025 Honoree Sidley Austin

Sidley Austin’s key pro bono matters included a class action victory in Steward v. Young  for thousands of Texans with intellectual and developmental disabilities who have been placed in segregated nursing facilities without services required by federal law. Sidley Austin also secured a June US Supreme Court ruling in Soto v. United States for Corporal Simon Soto, a former Marine, and a class of more than 9,000 veterans denied full Combat-Related Special Compensation benefits. The high court issued a unanimous opinion that veterans with combat-related disabilities are entitled to CRSC benefits no matter when they applied. How did your firm strategize on these matters?

We approached the Steward and Soto matters with a holistic vision and nimbleness that we consider hallmarks of our firm.

Steward: In the Steward case, we focused on several key issues—where to file, pursuing emergency relief, potential settlement discussions, and various litigation components. We met with numerous potential class members to identify compelling, humanizing narratives that would bring to life the systemic problems our clients face.

We also strategized on how to best leverage the insights of our team, which included co-counsel at the Center for Public Representation, Disability Rights Texas (DRTx), and the Department of Justice, which intervened in the case soon after it was filed. CPR had litigated similar cases in other states and knew what worked and what didn’t. DRTx had a deep understanding of the policy and people, including the day-to-day relationships with class members. The DOJ had the resources and credibility to assert certain positions, but we had to be strategic about their role and timing.

Our Sidley  team knows how to litigate major class actions, brief significant issues of law, and try complex cases with many witnesses. Together, we were a cohesive, collaborative team, which was especially important as the case shifted. Early on, we dedicated significant resources to mediation and settlement, which we thought was in the best interest of our clients and the state.

We had an interim settlement agreement which fell apart in 2015 (five years into the case), so we had to quickly pivot back to full-blown adversarial advocacy. We did so effectively and then litigated the case powerfully thereafter because of the groundwork laid by our early strategic decisions.

Soto:  One critical first decision for Soto was forum. We wanted as many veterans as possible to be helped. If we filed in the Court of Federal Claims, our clients could seek over $10,000 but the rules employ an “opt in” procedure where only veterans who receive and respond to notice get relief.

In district court, claims were limited to $10,000 but all class members are covered unless they “opt out.” We chose district court but did not forget veterans with larger claims. After Soto progressed, we filed a class action (Carey) in the Federal Claims Court; the strategy paid off and the government is now working on all claims, regardless of amount.
 
Then our appellate team brought its strategic insights to bear. After losing at the Federal Circuit, we had to convince SCOTUS to take our case even without a circuit split. In seeking certiorari, we focused on one key statutory interpretation question and emphasized that only the Supreme Court could resolve this critical issue. With only 45 days to write the merits brief, we drew on text, statutory history, and structure to support our reading.

Although the Justices may not have been familiar with this statutory scheme, we were confident we could make this argument in a clear, comprehensible way. We presented a complicated concept in straightforward terms to win this critical case for our clients.

What were the most innovative aspects of two of your client matters in your view? And who took the lead on driving innovation with the work?

The most innovative aspects of both our Steward and Soto cases common to many of our pro bono matters is our interdisciplinary approach and our ability to build on many years of investment in these subject matter areas. We truly have an innovative pro bono infrastructure—led by lawyers who are leading subject matter experts and who exclusively do pro bono work and run our six initiatives—with significant support from firm partners who chair our global and office-level pro bono committees.

Steward: In the Steward case, we utilized a cross-office interdisciplinary team to spearhead this complex, 15-years-long, class action litigation. The case was also extraordinary for the level of collaboration between our team and co-counsel at CPR, DRTx, and the DOJ. While it was highly unusual to try a case with the DOJ, we all brought our own skill sets and expertise to bear and combined them for a successful outcome.

The Steward case was an enormous undertaking and our team shared responsibilities for every facet of the litigation, including class certification, extensive discovery, the multi-week trial, and complex remedies. This class action case went far beyond traditional legal advocacy and everyone on the team was committed to bringing justice to these marginalized individuals no matter how long it took. Over the course of the litigation, we dedicated thousands of pro bono hours, worth millions of dollars, to the case, and more than 50 individuals at the firm were involved.
 
Soto: For the Soto  matter, we combined our deep understanding of veterans law – an area that our firm has been heavily invested in long before its recent popularity, including contributing over 12,000 pro bono hours to veterans matters in 2024 alone – with our strong relationships with co-counsel at the National Veterans Legal Services Program, which is an organization that is vital to our many years of work on veterans issues. Our cross-office team also included lawyers with extensive class action experience and, as the case moved through the courts over more than eight years of litigation, we added in the deep appellate experience of our Supreme Court, Appellate, and Litigation strategies practice to draft a successful certiorari petition and deliver a winning argument before the court.
 
Our pro bono strategy mirrors the way we deliver billable client work. We bring the best talent to each phase of every matter, regardless of where they are based and whether they were involved in prior phases. While it’s easy to consistently deliver to clients in billable matters, it is arguably quite another matter in the pro bono context. We often hear from lateral partners that they find it remarkable that our pro bono efforts employ the same model as our billable work and find the depth of our pro bono commitment incomparable to that at previous firms where they have worked.

Tell us more about the impact of these two matters on the local, national, and/or global level. 

Steward: The Steward case addressed Texas’s systemic over-reliance on segregated care for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). The state defaulted to placing people in nursing homes, undermining federal mandates. Federal law requires two basic things from the states that administer these programs. First, people with IDD should have every possible opportunity to live in a community setting rather than an institutional setting like a nursing home (with the opportunity to regularly change whatever choice they make) and second to have specialized services in an institutional setting to live the best life they can. With this win, the court found that Texas’ long-term-care infrastructure and service delivery model must be redesigned—redirecting policy toward individualized, integrated supports and away from placing people in nursing homes.

In addition to the direct and powerful impact on the more than 4,000 Texans with IDD who have been wrongly institutionalized over decades, this case affects future individuals (and their families) who will not have their civil rights denied. The legal impact also includes a sweeping declaratory judgment on ADA, the Medicaid Act, and the Nursing Home Reform Amendments to the Medicaid Act accompanied by what the court envisions to be a forward-facing injunction. To comply with the law, Texas must now build an inclusive, accountable system of care—highlighting the positive effects that dedication to long term, systemic impact cases can have in communities.

The case is also a model for other states that are evaluating compliance with the law and how to structure policies for individuals with IDD. Lastly, the case provides a road map for litigants in other states on how to win these cases and bring about real change.

Soto: The Soto case is of exceptional importance not only to our client, Corporal Soto, whom we have represented since the filing of his complaint, but with regard to the federal government’s obligations to veterans who have selflessly served and sacrificed for our nation. We represented a class of more than 9,000 combat-disabled veterans who were denied the full extent of their retroactive Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) by the lower federal courts.

The Supreme Court unanimously overturned those rulings, holding that veterans with combat-related disabilities are entitled to receive CRSC benefits for all months in which they are eligible, no matter when they applied for such benefits. The court’s decision is important to these veterans’ financial circumstances, allowing them to seek the full benefits to which they are entitled, and to their dignity.

Beyond the national impact of the case on the class of more than 9,000 veterans, the ruling establishes a clear legal precedent, holding that specific statutes creating comprehensive benefits schemes can displace general limitations periods like the Barring Act. The court’s ruling on statutory interpretation and legislative intent has expansive implications for how veteran benefits are administered and interpreted for veterans across the country—affecting many cases in the Federal Circuit and lower courts for years to come—making it one of the most significant veteran rights cases in recent history.

Why do you think your team ultimately achieved successful results in these two matters? 

From a macro perspective, we have devoted decades of sustained attention to pro bono work on behalf of veterans and civil rights defendants. This has not only made us thought leaders and trailblazers in these areas but has created a rich institutional culture of commitment to this work that spans generations. From a micro perspective, our ultimate success was the result of being able to field “dream teams” for these hard-fought battles.

Steward: In the Steward class action case, we knew that few firms could take on this representation given the magnitude of the matter and the expertise needed. We knew we were right under the law, and we knew that the state would fight us with everything they had. It was clear from the beginning that we would likely be taking the case to trial, and we had a team that was willing to dedicate the time and resources to get to the outcome we achieved. Not every team has this option—for a variety of reasons— but we were committed to advocating for these people who could not advocate for themselves and doing whatever was necessary to right this wrong.

Soto: When we took on the Soto case, we knew we were the best firm for the job given our depth of knowledge in veterans law and our vast class action defense and appellate expertise. It was a significant case with broad repercussions, but the “bigness” of the case was in our sweet spot, and we knew we could make a difference.

At the start of the case, we were very confident with our arguments and had early success in defeating a motion for judgment on the pleadings. As the case moved through the courts, the government came up with a whole new set of arguments and more complicated theories that were very challenging. These took a lot of work to untangle, which made the case harder as we went along. But we always felt that we were right, and our appellate experts brilliantly framed the case for success at the Supreme Court. It was a team effort that required everyone’s commitment and expertise to achieve this incredible result for our clients.

In the end, both of these cases required herculean efforts to be successful, but we never wavered in our dedication to these clients and their causes. It is especially satisfying when you win broad impact class action cases like Steward and Soto – where many individuals’ lives and livelihoods are literally on the line – and can help change people’s lives for the better.

Responses provided by Sidley Austin partners Yvette Ostolaza, management committee chair and member of the Commercial Litigation and Disputes practice; Robert Velevis, member of the Commercial Litigation and Disputes and Consumer Class Actions practices; and Natali Wyson, member of the Commercial Litigation and Disputes practice, for the Steward v. Young matter.

Responses provided by Sidley Austin pro-bono counsel Emily Wexler, head of the firm’s Veterans Advocacy Project; partner Tacy Flint, co-leader of the Supreme Court, Appellate, and Litigation Strategies practice; and partner Simone Jones, member of the Consumer Class Actions practice, for the Soto v. United States matter.