Andrew D. Prins

Washington, D.C.
  • 555 Eleventh Street, NW
  • Suite 1000
  • Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
  • USA

Andrew Prins is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Latham & Watkins.

Mr. Prins’s practice focuses on high-stakes government-facing disputes, often involving challenges to the legality of government regulatory actions. He represents clients before trial courts, appellate courts, and administrative agencies in matters that involve precedent-setting questions of constitutional law, administrative law, federal preemption, and statutory interpretation. He also represents clients in other forms of complex litigation, including class action defense.

Mr. Prins counsels clients in a number of highly regulated industries, especially those in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical, healthcare, and telecommunications spaces. He is an expert in the statutory and regulatory regimes applicable to these clients, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Plant Protection Act (PPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Prior to joining Latham, Mr. Prins served as a judicial clerk to Judge J. L. Edmondson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. During law school, he was an editor on the Duke Law Journal. Mr. Prins also has extensive experience in the technology industry, with a particular focus on networking technologies and data security. For 10 years prior to practicing law, he served in various senior-level engineering and management roles at a large multinational internet and telecommunications company.

Mr. Prins’s representative litigation matters include:

  • Institute for Justice v. IRS, No. 18-5316 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2019): obtaining rare reversal of a grant of summary judgment to the government under the Freedom of Information Act, after argument by Mr. Prins
  • Mejia v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 15-cv-06445-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2019): defeating class certification in case alleging approximately 150 million phone calls placed in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
  • Olsen v. Charter Communications, Inc., 1:18-cv-03388-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2019): compelling plaintiffs in putative class action into arbitration concerning claims asserting misrepresentation of Internet broadband speeds, after argument by Mr. Prins  
  • Athenex Inc. v. Azar, 19-cv-00603, 2019 WL 3501811 (D.D.C. Aug. 1, 2019): defeating challenge by client’s competitor to FDA's regulatory determination in favor of client regarding bulk compounding
  • Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Azar et al, 1:16-cv-790 (D.D.C. Jun. 8, 2018): ordering FDA to recognize orphan drug exclusivity for client’s drug and setting aside FDA’s prior refusal to do so as inconsistent with the statute
  • National Association of Wheat Growers et al v. Zeise, 2:17-cv-02401 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2018): obtaining on First Amendment grounds a preliminary injunction against enforcement of California’s Proposition 65’s warning requirement
  • Par Sterile Products, LLC et al v. Hargan, 1:17-cv-02221 (D.D.C. Oct. 26, 2017): challenging FDA “guidance” document purporting to exercise “enforcement discretion” over certain drug compounding activities
  • Miller v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 8:16-cv-00329-CAS-AS (C.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2016): dismissing injunctive TCPA claim for lack of Article III standing and compelling remaining damages claim to arbitration after argument by Mr. Prins
  • Atay v. County of Maui, 842 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2016): affirming lower court victory invalidating county ban on biotechnology crops as preempted by federal and state law
  • Robert Ito Farm, Inc. v. County of Maui, 842 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2016): defeating constitutional challenge by proposed intervenor to denial of intervention in the lower court
  • In re: Time Warner Cable, Inc., Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Litigation, - F. Supp. 3d -, 2016 WL 5846036 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 3, 2016): denying centralization of TCPA class actions after argument by Mr. Prins
  • Residents for The Beverly Hills Garden and Open Space Initiative v. City of Beverly Hills, 2:16-cv-05532 (C.D. Cal. Aug 2, 2016): obtaining on First Amendment grounds a preliminary injunction against city ordinance placing restrictions and burdens on political speech
  • Robert Ito Farm, Inc. v. Cnty. of Maui, - F. Supp. 3d -, No. CIV. 14-00511, 2015 WL 4041480 (D. Haw. June 30, 2015): invalidating county ban on biotechnology crops as preempted by federal and state law
  • New York Statewide Coal. of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. New York City Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene, 23 N.Y.3d 681 (2014): invalidating New York City’s “soda ban” on constitutional grounds
  • Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. v. Sebelius, No. 1:14-cv-00786 (D.D.C. May 15, 2014): defeating challenge to pending FDA generic drug application
  • Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 718 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2013): defeating challenge to biotechnology crop approval
  • Walgreen Co. v. DEA, No. 12-1397 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 10, 2012): challenging DEA enforcement action and regulatory interpretation
  • Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes v. City of Richmond, 3:12-cv-04545 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2012): obtaining on First Amendment grounds a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against city ordinance placing restrictions and burdens on political speech
Notice: We appreciate your interest in Latham & Watkins. If your inquiry relates to a legal matter and you are not already a current client of the firm, please do not transmit any confidential information to us. Before taking on a representation, we must determine whether we are in a position to assist you and agree on the terms and conditions of engagement with you. Until we have completed such steps, we will not be deemed to have a lawyer-client relationship with you, and will have no duty to keep confidential the information we receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.