Photo of Stacey Grigsby

Stacey Grigsby

As a former senior White House and Department of Justice Official, Stacey Grigsby combines high-level government experience with an understanding of corporate challenges to represent clients in significant litigation and sensitive investigations. Stacey recently rejoined the firm after serving as Deputy Counsel to President Biden. In the White House Counsel’s Office, Stacey advised the President and senior White House officials on a range of civil rights issues, worked closely with senior DOJ officials and Cabinet agency general counsel, and led interagency consideration of legal issues related to high-profile litigation, legislation, and regulations.

Stacey is a nationally recognized litigator, who has served as a principal lawyer in cases before numerous courts, including presenting ten oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals.  She also represents clients in matters involving pre- and post-award bid protests, government takings, contract disputes and claims, and investigations of alleged misconduct and fraud. Stacey also regularly litigates matters arising under: the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), the False Claims Act (FCA), the Tucker Act, and state unfair competition laws.

As co-chair of Covington’s Government Litigation practice, Stacey represents clients across numerous industries in a range of federal and state government-facing litigation proceedings.  Stacey draws upon her recent role as a senior litigation strategist within the government and deep experience handling litigation in private practice, to represent clients in government litigation matters.

Stacey is also a senior member of the firm’s Institutional Culture and Social Responsibility Practice, serving our clients facing increasing scrutiny from internal and external stakeholders related to their workplace cultures and commitment to promoting gender and racial equity. Stacey is an integral resource for our clients in this space, given her unique experience at the center of government policy and decision-making on civil rights and related issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. She was central to formulating the Administration’s strategy on reproductive rights in the wake of the Dobbs decision and its response to the Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions decision on affirmative action in higher education.

Earlier in her career, Stacey served for eight years at the U.S. Department of Justice, as a trial attorney, senior trial attorney, and later as Counsel to the Associate Attorney General. As Counsel to the Associate AG, she advised on a diverse set of department-wide and interagency issues, ranging from civil litigation to proposed regulations. She assisted in negotiations to resolve a number of civil fraud investigations, resulting in historic settlements.

July 10, 2024, Covington Alert

On July 3, 2024, Judge Ada Brown of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the motions for a preliminary injunction—filed by Ryan LLC (“Ryan”) and several trade associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”)—to prevent the FTC’s rule banning non-compete clauses from going into effect, but the court’s order only applies to the named plaintiffs (i.e., it is not a nationwide injunction). The court has indicated that it will issue a final order on the merits by August 30, 2024, just a few days before the FTC’s rule is scheduled to go into effect on September 4. It is possible that Judge Brown enjoins the non-compete ban nationwide in her final order.

Background

In April, the FTC issued a final rule banning almost all non-competes with U.S. workers, with narrow exceptions, pursuant to its claimed authority to issue competition-related rules under Sections 5 and 6(g) of the FTC Act. That same day, Ryan challenged the FTC’s rule and, shortly thereafter, filed a motion to stay and preliminarily enjoin the rule, arguing that the FTC has no statutory authority to promulgate the rule, that the rule is the product of an unconstitutional exercise of power, and that the FTC’s acts were arbitrary and capricious. The Chamber and other trade groups intervened as plaintiffs on May 8, making substantially the same arguments.

The Order

In its Order, the court found that the Plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success that (1) the FTC does not have the statutory authority to engage in competition-related rulemaking, (2) the non-compete rule is arbitrary and capricious, and (3) the plaintiffs and intervenors had satisfied the standard to obtain injunctive relief.Continue Reading Texas District Court Enjoins FTC’s Rule Banning Non-Compete Clauses