Senior Associate
Appellate
Ethan is a member of Vinson & Elkins’ Appellate section. His practice focuses on appeals and original proceedings in state and federal appellate courts. Prior to joining V&E, he served as a judicial clerk to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and a writing instructor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.
Ethan has been named to the “Ones to Watch – Appellate Practice” list by The Best Lawyers in America© (2026). The following is a list of matters in which Ethan has assisted.
(5th Cir.) – Obtained unanimous affirmance of a $14 million fraud judgment for an energy company against its former employee who engaged in a kickback scheme with contractors
(U.S.); (11th Cir.) – As member of an appellate team, obtained ruling on appeal that two United Mine Workers of America funds could not recover Coal Act liabilities because they had been discharged in a prior bankruptcy; adversary’s petition before the U.S. Supreme Court was denied
(5th Cir). – Obtained remand to the Board of Immigration Appeals from the denial of asylum for an Anglophone Cameroonian who was detained and beaten by Cameroonian authorities for participation in a protest for Anglophone rights
(5th Cir.) – As member of an appellate team, challenged district court’s order that authorized third-party subpoenas for use in foreign proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1782; on appeal the Fifth Circuit issued a precedential decision reversing the district court for failing to consider our client’s arguments that discovery should not issue under § 1782
(Fed. Cir.) – Represented the Board of Regents of a public university as patent-owner in inter partes review application; the patents-in-suit generally related to Th-1 dendritic cells and their use in treating tumors
(5th Cir.) – Representing electric transmission and distribution utility as intervenor in defending statute granting a right of first refusal for building new transmission lines to incumbent utilities against Dormant Commerce Clause and Contract Clause challenges (ongoing)
(U.S.) – Filed petition for writ of certiorari challenging Fifth Circuit’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction over questions of law under the Immigration and Nationality Act
(4th Cir.) – Drafted amicus brief supporting a claim for greater press access to executions in Virginia
(5th Cir.) – Drafted amicus brief on behalf of 42 former Immigration Judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals arguing that a mentally ill asylum applicant was denied due process
(Tex. App. – Houston [14th]) – Successfully argued to the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals and obtained reversal of bench trial judgment dividing property and imposing restrictions on client’s ability to travel internationally
(Tex. App. − Austin); (Tex. Dist. – Travis Cnty.) – In bet-the-company matter, obtained preliminary injunction preventing Texas licensing board from bringing administrative action to revoke client’s approval to train candidates to be classroom teachers; following a favorable settlement and independent audit, client’s state accreditation was restored
(Tex. App. – San Antonio) – Obtained mandamus relief in a contract dispute over a 50-year water supply agreement estimated to be worth over $100 million
(Tex. App. − Austin) – Obtained favorable ruling for an electric transmission and distribution utility in an appeal addressing whether the courts have jurisdiction over client’s claim to enjoin a city’s threatened condemnation of client’s streetlight system
(Tex.) – As member of an appellate team, obtained 8-0 ruling that local taxing unit did not have statutory authority to retain private attorney on contingent fee to pursue a taxpayer for an alleged $60 million in unpaid property taxes
(Tex. App. – Austin) – As member of an appellate team, obtained a complete victory for telecommunications clients in a decision holding that, by failing to fund the Texas Universal Service Fund, the Public Utility Commission acted outside its statutory authority, violated state rulemaking procedures, and took private property without providing just compensation
(Tex.); (Tex. App. – San Antonio) – Secured denial of mandamus relief challenging a district court’s discovery order
(Tex.); (Tex. Dist. – Tarrant Cnty.) – Drafted post-judgment motions and arguments involving the scope of judgment, as well as attorney’s fees, on behalf of a church in a case involving the First Amendment’s impact on state property law
(Tex.); (Tex. App.—Dallas) – Represented plaintiff in a case alleging our opponent committed fraud in a stock transaction
Education
Admissions
Client Alerts
California Pipeline Ruling Signals Expansive Defense Production Act Preemption Power
On August 19, 2026, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that a Trump administration order under the Defense Production Act (“DPA”) allows Sable Offshore Corporation to flow oil through its onshore pipeline, despite California’s contention that the pipeline’s operation violates state law.
August 25, 2026
August 25, 2026 • 8-minute read
Awards & Rankings
The Best Lawyers in America (BL Rankings, LLC) has named 125 Vinson & Elkins lawyers in its “Best Lawyers” category in the 2026 edition. Additionally, 76 Vinson & Elkins attorneys have been named in the “Ones to Watch” category, which recognizes lawyers with 5–10 years’ experience. Some individuals are listed in more than one practice area, giving the firm a total of 305 rankings.
August 21, 2025
August 21, 2025 • 3-minute read
Deals & Cases
On September 12, the Fifth Circuit upheld summary judgment dismissal of fraud and Texas Deceptive Trade Practice Act claims against Vinson & Elkins’ client, Steve Hart Restoration and Race Preparation, Ltd.
September 16, 2022
September 16, 2022 • 2-minute read
our People
Please note that any communication with Vinson & Elkins via e-mail through this website does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship with V&E. Please do not send any confidential information. A conflicts-of-interest procedure must be completed by V&E prior to establishment of an attorney-client relationship. When you execute an engagement letter from V&E you will be our client, and you may then exchange information freely with a V&E attorney.
By clicking “Accept,” you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if it is highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.
