Hilton Argues Double Feature Before a Law Student Audience in Phoenix

Last week, Jonathan Hilton had the rare opportunity of arguing two different appellate cases back-to-back before a live audience of law students in Phoenix, Arizona. On September 15, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard four cases in the Sandra Day O’Connor Ceremonial Courtroom—the final two of which were argued by Mr. Hilton.

In Catelyn H. v. Boyd Gaming Corp., et al., Mr. Hilton argued on behalf of a victim of human trafficking against a group of three Las Vegas casinos. Catelyn (who is proceeding under a pseudonym) was forced by a violent pimp into a life of sex work as a teenager, and the panel heard Hilton’s arguments about why her Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”) claims should be allowed to proceed.

 After delivering his rebuttal in Catelyn H., Mr. Hilton then immediately launched into argument in McMillan v. Dolgen Midwest, a case in which the Ninth Circuit heard argument about the correct evidentiary and summary judgment standards in Nevada for premises liability cases:

This was a special event with an audience of law students, and the panel stayed afterwards to answer questions. The distinguished panel included Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., who was nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed unanimously by the Senate in 2006. Judge Smith brought nearly three decades of bench experience to the arguments and the Q&A session. The panel also included Judge Eric C. Tung, recently confirmed to the Ninth Circuit (2025) after serving as a partner at Jones Day, one of the nation’s premier litigation practices, and Judge Yvette Kane of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation, who brings years of trial court experience to add another perspective to the appellate bench.

The firm was honored to have had two cases set for this argument, and to have had the unique opportunity to argue a “double feature.”

This post is attorney advertising and is provided for general informational purposes only. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and describes a matter that remains pending. Nothing here is a prediction or guarantee of any outcome.