Supreme Court Litigation Clinic
Recent Filings and Developments
November 25, 2014: Clinic files certiorari petition in Green v. Donahoe, U.S. Postal Service, raising the issue of when, under federal employment discrimination law, the filing period for an unlawful constructive discharge claim begins to run. For more information and to view the certiorari petition, see SCOTUSBlog at http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/green-v-donahoe/
November 21, 2014: Clinic files merits brief for a group of respondents in ONEOK v. Learjet, et al., which involves whether the Natural Gas Act preempts state antitrust claims arising from a conspiracy to inflate the retail price of gas. Argument is scheduled for January 12, 2015. For more information and to view briefs previously filed in the case, see SCOTUSBlog at http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/oneok-inc-v-learjet-inc/?wpmp_switcher=desktop
November 13, 2014: Clinic files certiorari petition in Nelson v. Wisconsin, presenting the question whether a trial court’s complete denial of a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to testify is amenable to harmless-error analysis.
October 6, 2014: The Court issued an order (see p. 39) in favor of the clinic's clients in Smith v. Bishop, declining without comment to review the lower court's ruling striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriages. This order was issued along with six others in similarly pending petitions certiorari on the first day of the October 2014 term. Within hours of the announcement, county clerk offices began issuing marriage licenses in Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma and Utah. See coverage in The New York Times, SCOTUSblog here and here.
April 28, 2014: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Dunlap v. Idaho, involving whether the Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses applies to facts the prosecution must prove to establish a defendant's eligibility for the death penalty.
April 21, 2014: Court grants clinic's petition for certiorari in Heien v. North Carolina, involving whether a police officer's mistaken understanding of the law can provide the individualized suspicion the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop.
February 25, 2014: Court rules 6-3 against clinic's client in Fernandez v. California, holding that the police may search an arrestee's home based on the consent of a co-tenant even when the arrestee told the police before arrested that he refused such consent. See coverage in The New York Times and SCOTUSBlog.
January 17, 2014: Court grants clinic's cert petition in Riley v. California, presenting the question whether, or under what circumstances, the Fourth Amendment permits the police to conduct a warrantless search of the digital contents of a person's cell phone seized during an arrest. See coverage in the The New York Times.
- Stanford Law SchoolSupreme Court Litigation Clinic
- Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way, Administration Building, Law Clinic, B01
- tel: 650 724.1900
- fax: 650 723.4426
MLC Social Media