• Logo
  • Logo
  • Logo

Our Services

We help our clients navigate the appellate process, every step of the way.

Motions

We handle motions seeking any form of relief that Minnesota and federal appellate courts can provide.

Petitions

We handle petitions asking Minnesota and federal appellate courts to review administrative agency decisions.

Appeals

We handle direct appeals of trial court orders and decisions to Minnesota and federal appellate courts.

Rehearing

We handle requests asking Minnesota and federal appellate courts to reconsider appellate decisions.

Certiorari

We handle applications for ultimate review by the Minnesota Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court.

Amicus

We handle friend-of-the-court (amicus curiae) briefs directed at Minnesota and federal appellate courts.

Our Story

Our Story

Founded in June 2015 by Mahesha Subbaraman, the law firm of Subbaraman PLLC is dedicated to providing clients from all walks of life with effective appellate representation. In this regard, Subbaraman PLLC has litigated cutting-edge legal issues in the areas of constitutional law, civil forfeiture law, business law, and immigration law. Subbaraman PLLC also provides pro bono appellate services to nonprofit organizations and individuals who otherwise cannot afford appellate counsel.

Our Founder

Born and raised in Minnesota, Mahesha Subbaraman is a graduate of Amherst College and the University of Minnesota Law School. As an appellate attorney, he has represented clients in state and federal courts on a variety of ground-breaking legal matters. Before founding Subbaraman PLLC, Mahesha served as an associate at the Minneapolis, MN office of Robins Kaplan L.L.P. and as a staff attorney at the Arlington, VA headquarters of the non-profit Institute for Justice.
Mahesha Subbaraman
Mahesha Subbaraman
Founder & Owner

Our Work

Just a few examples of our appellate work.

Need help with an appellate matter in Minnesota or federal court?

Latest News

  • Empirical SCOTUS Identifies Subbaraman PLLC as #1 in Quality SCOTUS Amicus Briefs

    Based on a statistical analysis of “the over 800 amicus briefs filed in [the U.S.] Supreme Court on the merits for the 2017 term,” Empirical SCOTUS has found that Subbaraman PLLC was the “top-ranked repeat player” amicus firm during the 2017 term. Created by scholar Adam Feldman, Empirical SCOTUS “leverages the power of statistics and analytics to answer current and historic questions about the United States Supreme Court.” Read the full study here.

    KARE 11 Interview on SCOTUS Cell-Phone Privacy Decision

    Minnesota TV station KARE 11 interviewed Subbaraman PLLC founder and attorney Mahesha Subbaraman about the Supreme Court’s landmark June 22, 2018 decision in Carpenter v. United States. The Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter that the Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of cell-site location information. Subbaraman PLLC filed a friend-of-the-court (amicus) brief in Carpenter on behalf of Restore the Fourth.

  • Spotlight on Likely Reference to ‘Ferris Bueller’ Amicus Brief at SCOTUS Oral Argument

    During the January 9, 2018 oral argument in Collins v. Virginia — a case concerning the right of homeowners to be secure against warrantless police searches for stolen or contraband vehicles — Chief Justice John Roberts referenced the movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. This was a likely nod to an amicus brief composed by Subbaraman PLLC on behalf of Restore the Fourth which uses the events of Ferris Bueller to illustrate the Fourth Amendment rights at stake. The Chicago Tribune and Lowering the Bar’s Kevin Underhill spotlight this connection.

    Victory! Ninth Circuit Affirms Free Speech Rights in Idaho Ag-Gag Case

    On January 4, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in ALDF v. Wasden that an Idaho law restricting the free-speech rights of investigative food journalists to make audio/visual recordings at agricultural production facilities is unconstitutional. The Court thus took the same position expressed in a friend-of-the-court brief authored by Subbaraman PLLC on behalf of fifteen prominent food law & policy scholars scholars.

  • Victory! SCOTUS Holds First Amendment Applies to Speech Regulation Masquerading as Pricing Ban

    On March 29, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of New York merchants in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman. Addressing the merchants’ First Amendment challenge to New York’s ban on credit-card surcharges, the Court found that this ban regulated commercial speech — not mere conduct — because the ban simply controlled how merchants described credit-card surcharges to customers. The Court thus took the same position expressed in a friend-of-the-court brief authored by Subbaraman PLLC on behalf of a group of prominent First Amendment scholars and the First Amendment Lawyers Association. That brief can be read here.

    Letter to D.C. Circuit Highlighted by Law360 News

    Reporting on an important legal challenge to the use of body scans and full-body pat-downs by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to screen airline passengers, Law360 cites a letter that Subbaraman PLLC drafted and filed on behalf of several consumer privacy and passenger-rights organizations: “Consumer groups asked the D.C. Circuit on Thursday to consider two recent highly publicized passenger screening incidents at airports in Los Angeles and Detroit as it weighs a challenge to the Transportation Security Administration’s final rule on airport body scanners, saying the technology is intrusive and hurting passengers.” Read the full article here (subscription required).

  • Amicus Brief Filed in SCOTUS Border Shooting Case

    We are pleased to announce that we have filed an friend-of-the-court (amicus) brief on behalf of Restore the Fourth in an important Fourth Amendment case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court: Hernandez v. Mesa. The case concerns a U.S. border agent’s shooting of a 15-year-old boy across the U.S.-Mexico border. This brief explains why under the U.S. Constitution, U.S. officials may always be held liable for their arbitrary use of lethal force, no matter where the force was used or the nationality of the victim. The brief can be read here.

    Scholars/FALA Amici Brief Filed in Credit Card Speech Case

    We are pleased to announce that we have just filed an friend-of-the-court (amici) brief on behalf of several prominent First Amendment scholars and the First Amendment Lawyers Association supporting a group of New York retailers before the U.S. Supreme Court. The brief explains why New York’s credit-card surcharge ban limits commercial speech and thus warrants First Amendment review. The case is called Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman.

  • Subbaraman PLLC Cited in Minnesota Lawyer on Anti-SLAPP Case

    The Minnesota Lawyer has published a detailed article on an important case before the Minnesota Supreme Court that Subbaraman PLLC helped to brief. At issue is whether Minnesota’s Anti-SLAPP immunity law violates Minnesota’s jury-trial guarantee: “[Attorney Robert] Hill hopes the court will declare that provision of the law unconstitutional on its face, saying the court needs to give ‘guidance’ to the Legislature, as well as the litigants and the bar, to protect the rules of civil procedure. To that end, Hill recruited Mahesha Subbaraman, a highly regarded appellate litigator with a solo practice in Minneapolis, to draft the brief. He also persuaded his old friend Eric Magnuson, the former chief justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court and now a partner at Robins Kaplan, to argue the case. ‘Whenever I’m in a knife fight, I like to bring a Howitzer,’ Hill quipped.” Read the full article here.

    Amicus Brief Authored by Subbaraman PLLC Quoted in Wall Street Journal

    Reporting on a major commercial speech case that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review, the Wall Street Journal quotes a friend-of-the-court (amicus) brief that Subbaraman PLLC drafted and filed on behalf of ten distinguished First Amendment scholars: “In a brief supporting the merchants, a group of First Amendment scholars argued that it’s misleading to say the case is just about price-control regulations.” Read the full article here.