Sharmistha Das
Overview
Sharmi Das’ experience at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Justice (DOJ), the White House, the U.S. Senate, and private practice positions her to guide clients through regulatory challenges, government-facing issues, and scrutiny from Congress and other oversight bodies. Sharmi has handled dozens of congressional inquiries and managed a program that developed hundreds of regulatory actions relating to homeland security matters, including technology, cybersecurity, contracts and grants, intelligence, health, and immigration. She participated in hundreds of policy discussions at the White House and DHS on high-profile issues that were often in the headlines, including domestic and international crises and emergencies.
Career & Education
- Department of Homeland Security
Deputy Chief of Staff, 2023–2025 - Department of Homeland Security
Deputy General Counsel, 2021–2023 - Office of the Vice President
White House, Associate Counsel, 2022–2023 - Office of U.S. Senator Kamala Harris
Senator Kamala Harris, Senior Counsel, 2019–2021
- Department of Homeland Security
- Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., cum laude, 2014
- Yale University, B.A., political science with distinction, 2009
- District of Columbia
- New York
- Supreme Court of the United States
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- Law Clerk, Department of Justice, 2013
- Bengali
- French
Sharmistha's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.29.25
Meet the New Nationwide Injunction. Same as the Old Nationwide Injunction.
Last week, we wrote that concerns about excessive, unchecked executive branch power resulting from the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA—which declared universal/nationwide injunctions likely exceeded district courts’ equitable authority under FRCP 65—felt premature, because there were a number of other levers district courts could pull to deliver the equivalent of nationwide injunctive relief. We discussed how Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is one such lever. That section authorizes courts to “postpone the effective date” of a challenged agency action pending judicial review utilizing the same four-factor test applicable to requests for injunctive relief.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.29.25
Client Alert | 7 min read | 07.29.25
Publication | 07.23.25
Insights
The Decline of Deference: Is the Supreme Court Pruning Back the Chevron Doctrine?
|09.30.15
Trends, ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources Newsletter
- |
12.16.14
Crowell & Moring's Government Contracts Legal Forum
Sharmistha's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.29.25
Meet the New Nationwide Injunction. Same as the Old Nationwide Injunction.
Last week, we wrote that concerns about excessive, unchecked executive branch power resulting from the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA—which declared universal/nationwide injunctions likely exceeded district courts’ equitable authority under FRCP 65—felt premature, because there were a number of other levers district courts could pull to deliver the equivalent of nationwide injunctive relief. We discussed how Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is one such lever. That section authorizes courts to “postpone the effective date” of a challenged agency action pending judicial review utilizing the same four-factor test applicable to requests for injunctive relief.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.29.25
Client Alert | 7 min read | 07.29.25
Publication | 07.23.25
