About the Firm
Najvar Law Firm PLLC focuses on aggressive litigation, at trial and through the highest levels of the appellate process, including the United States Supreme Court. We focus on defending fundamental liberties and advancing principles of limited, constitutional government. NLF has successfully litigated cases involving First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and due process rights in various contexts, scoring landmark victories striking down federal and state laws, as well as municipal charter provisions and ordinances in various Texas cities. Some representative matters are summarized below.
NLF is not a volume litigation practice; instead, we focus intensely on a limited number of matters implicating important rights and issues. We also provide expert counsel regarding the dizzying array of federal and state political laws, including campaign finance, ethics, and election laws governing all aspects of the political process, as they affect candidates, officeholders, PACs, and nonprofits. This includes zealous representation in the Federal Election Commission, Texas Ethics Commission, and municipal ethics commissions.
Visit our Practice Areas page for more about our experience in First Amendment & Constitutional Litigation, Appeals, Campaign Finance, and Election & Political Disputes.
- McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. 185 (2014), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held the federal aggregate contribution limits facially unconstitutional.
- Catholic Leadership Coal. of Tex. v. Reisman, 764 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2014), in which the Fifth Circuit held a Texas statute, requiring new political committees to wait 60 days and collect contributions from ten different persons before spending more than $500, to be facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment (reversing the trial court).
- Davidson v. City of Stafford, Tex., 848 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2017), in which the Fifth Circuit held that two police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for arresting Davidson, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, as he was protesting and praying outside an abortion clinic (reversing the trial court). The Circuit Court remanded for trial against the officers, and directed entry of a declaratory judgment against the City for chilling Davidson’s speech in violation of the First Amendment.
- Villarreal v. Texas Southern Univ., 570 S.W.3d 916 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018), reh’g denied (Apr. 25, 2019), pet. filed (Jul. 10, 2019), in which the court of appeals revived NLF’s client’s due process claim challenging dismissal from law school based on the administration’s alleged bad-faith cover up of a law school exam grading controversy (reversing the trial court).
- Zimmerman v. City of Austin, Tex., 881 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2018), reh’g denied, 888 F.3d 163, cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 639, in which the Fifth Circuit affirmed judgement against the City, after a two-day bench trial, striking down two provisions of the City campaign finance code which had restricted fundraising by city candidates to the last six months before election day and then required the disgorgement of campaign funds between elections.
- Gordon v. City of Houston, Tex., 79 F. Supp. 3d 676 (S.D. Tex. 2015), in which the federal district court granted a preliminary and permanent injunction from enforcing a charter provision that limited city candidate fundraising to the last nine months before election day.
- Pool, et al. v. City of Houston, Tex., 4:19-cv-02236 (S.D. Tex. 2019), in which the federal district court granted an emergency temporary restraining order, prohibiting the City from enforcing a charter provision requiring anyone circulating initiative petitions to be a registered voter of the City.
- Rivera v. Lopez, 13-14-00581-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 14, 2014), in which the Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment for NLF’s client after a four-day trial in Hidalgo County, proving thirty illegal votes cast in a council race and ordering a new election.
Najvar Law Firm
2180 North Loop West
Houston, TX 77018