Photo of Megan Crowley

Megan Crowley

Megan Crowley is a nationally recognized litigator who represents clients in complex, high-stakes cases at the intersection of law, government, and policy. As Co-Chair of Covington’s Government Litigation practice, she combines strategic foresight with public-sector experience, having previously litigated high-impact constitutional, statutory, and administrative law cases at the U.S. Department of Justice.

For more than five years, Megan has co-led Covington’s representation of TikTok in litigation concerning privacy, data security, and government regulation—some of the most consequential technology cases of the past decade. In 2020, she co-led Covington’s successful challenge to the Executive Order seeking to ban TikTok’s operations in the United States. In 2023, she and the team obtained a preliminary injunction blocking Montana’s statewide ban on TikTok—the first ruling of its kind. Since 2024, Megan has continued to co-lead Covington’s representation of TikTok in matters arising under the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, including proceedings before the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as related issues critical to the platform’s ongoing U.S. operations.

Megan has also achieved significant victories for other clients facing complex regulatory and constitutional challenges. She played a pivotal role in Covington’s successful representation of Xiaomi Corporation in overturning a Department of Defense designation that would have barred the company from U.S. financial markets, and has represented major global companies in administrative and appellate litigation involving data security, government regulation, and consumer protection.

In addition to her federal work, Megan has defended clients in State Attorney General enforcement actions. She delivered the winning argument that led to the complete dismissal of an Indiana Attorney General consumer protection action—one of several matters in which she has successfully opposed novel applications of state enforcement authority.

Beyond the courtroom, Megan advises clients on constitutional and administrative law issues, regulatory compliance, and emerging legislative frameworks governing online platforms. Her practice also encompasses litigation under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the First Amendment.

Her achievements have earned broad recognition. The American Lawyer named her “Litigator of the Week” for her successes, and Law360 has recognized her as a Rising Star in Cybersecurity & Privacy.

Megan maintains a robust pro bono practice, focused on civil rights litigation. She played a central role on the team representing the University of California in its challenge to the government’s rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, obtaining a nationwide injunction and, ultimately, a 5-4 victory in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue opinions in the coming months in two highly-anticipated cases — Moody v. NetChoice, L.L.C. (11th Cir.) and NetChoice, L.L.C. v. Paxton (5th Cir.) — that could potentially have significant implications for how companies moderate content on their platforms.Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Expected to Rule on NetChoice Cases in the Coming Months

Today, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Gonzalez v. Google LLC, a case about whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) protected YouTube’s recommendation algorithms from a claim of secondary liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). In a short, three-page per curiam opinion, the Court avoided addressing the

Continue Reading The U.S. Supreme Court Punts on Section 230 in Gonzalez v. Google LLC

On September 16, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in NetChoice L.L.C. v. Paxton, upholding Texas HB 20, a law that limits the ability of large social media platforms to moderate content and imposes various disclosure and appeal requirements on them.  The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction, which previously blocked the Texas Attorney General from enforcing the law.  NetChoice is likely to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

HB 20 prohibits “social media platforms” with “more than 50 million active users” from “censor[ing] a user, a user’s expression, or a user’s ability to receive the expression of another person” based on the “viewpoint” of the user or another person, or the user’s location.  HB 20 also includes various transparency requirements for covered entities, for example, requiring them to publish information about their algorithms for displaying content, to publish an “acceptable use policy” with information about their content restrictions, and to provide users an explanation for each decision to remove their content, as well as a right to appeal the decision.Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Upholds Texas Law Restricting Online “Censorship”