Elsewhere Online twitter Facebook SLS Blogs YouTube SLS Channel Linked In SLSNavigator SLSConnect

Supreme Court Litigation Clinic

Overview

Stanford’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic—the first of its kind at any law school—gives students the opportunity to explore a realm few lawyers experience in their careers: the Supreme Court of the United States. Under the direction of two faculty members and Washington, D.C.-based lecturers, who collectively have argued over fifty Supreme Court cases, clinic members work on real Supreme Court cases, representing parties and amici curiae.

Unlike other Stanford clinics, which concentrate on one substantive area of the law, the Supreme Court clinic focuses on the wide range of legal issues decided by the nation's highest court. In the past several terms, the clinic has represented a wide variety of clients, such as: workers raising claims under federal anti-discrimination laws, the Civil Service Reform Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act; criminal defendants with constitutional claims under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments; and various public interest and trade associations, ranging from the California Medical Association, to the National School Boards Association, to the National Women’s Law Center. The clinic also has been involved in cases concerning the free exercise of religion, bankruptcy law, the Voting Rights Act, the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause, and international treaties.

The clinic has compiled a record at both the certiorari and merits stages that would be the envy of any appellate practice. Over the past six years, the clinic has represented parties as lead counsel in over three dozen cases on the merits, winning a substantial majority of those cases. The clinic also has secured victories for clients by defeating petitions for certiorari filed by the U.S. Solicitor General, state attorneys general, and prominent businesses.

Students work on briefs and other filings, participate in moots for oral arguments, meet with Court personnel and reporters, and get a real feel for how the High Court operates. The clinic is known as particularly writing-intensive; students typically work in shifting teams to produce at least two briefs over the course of a quarter. Clinic alumni have gone on to a variety of clerkships, public-interest fellowships, positions in the Department of Justice, and jobs at private law firms.

"As a solo practitioner, I get used to my own way of doing things, but working with the incredible Stanford team taught me new ways. I think I will forever be a better appellate advocate as a result of their hard work."

– Sharon Samek '87, who worked on a case with the clinic.

"The process of working with the Stanford clinic is in a sense much more deliberative and more inclusive than working with other attorneys. .. . . I think they're building the next generation of great lawyers."

– Ben Cohen, of the Louisiana Capital Appeals Project, in Stanford Law Clinic Shakes Up Supreme Court Bar, Law 360, Sept 15, 2009.

News & Press

News

Press Releases

  • Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic in Oral Argument “Doubleheader” Monday and Arguing a Record Six for the Season
    March 24, 2008
    Related: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Pamela S. Karlan, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic
  • Jeffrey Fisher, Leading U.S. Supreme Court Litigator, Joins the Stanford Law School Faculty
    July 20, 2006
    Related: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Pamela S. Karlan, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic
  • U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic's case expands age discrimination protection
    March 30, 2005
    Related: Pamela S. Karlan, Thomas C. Goldstein, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic
  • U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear four cases submitted by Stanford Law School clinic students
    September 28, 2004
    Related: Pamela S. Karlan, Thomas C. Goldstein, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic

    • Publications

    Faculty

    The clinic currently operates with four instructors: professors Jeff Fisher and Pam Karlan, each of whom clerked for Supreme Court justices, write frequently about the Court, and have extensive experience litigating in the Court; lecturer Kevin Russell, another former clerk and former attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice; and lecturer Tom Goldstein, who is the founder of SCOTUSBlog and also has extensive experience litigating in the Court. Mr. Russell and Mr. Goldstein run the nation's first and only Supreme Court litigation boutique law firm. The four instructors have substantive expertise across the gamut of the Court's docket -- from criminal law and procedure to constitutional law, civil rights, labor and employment law, and international law.

    Clinic Contacts

    Jeffrey L. Fisher
    Co-Director
    650 724.7081
    Pamela S. Karlan
    Co-Director
    650 725.4851

    Recent filings and developments

    • April 30, 2012: Court grants clinic's petition for certiorari in Chaidez v. United States, which presents the question whether persons who pleaded guilty to crimes not realizing the pleas subjected them to deportation may obtain post-conviction relief upon showing they received ineffective assistance of counsel.
    • April 2, 2012: Court rules against clinic's client in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, holding that jails may strip search all new admittees, regardless of the charges against them or whether they have any reason to believe they have contraband on their person. See coverage in the New York Times.
    • February 28, 2012: Clinic, through Professor Jeff Fisher, presents oral argument in in Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, involving whether plaintiffs seeking damages under the Torture Victim Protection Act may sue not only natural persons but also organizations responsible for the human rights violations at issue.
    • February 21, 2012: Clinic, through instructor Kevin Russell, presents oral argument in Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., which presents the question whether the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act's prohibition against charging unearned fees applies only to kickbacks or also where the entity making the loan simply pockets the fraudulent charge.
    • January 18, 2012: Court rules against clinic's client in Golan v. Holder, ruling that Congress possesses authority under the Copyright Clause and First Amendment to restore copyright protection to works even after they have become part of the public domain. See more coverage on SCOTUSblog
    • January 17, 2012: Court denies certiorari in Fast v. Applebee's International, Inc., preserving the clinic's clients's ability to proceed to trial on their claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
    • January 17, 2012: Court denies certiorari in Alvis v. Espinoza, leaving intact the clinic's clients' victory allowing them to proceed to trial on their civil rights claims in connection with a police shooting.
    • December 19, 2011: Eleventh Circuit rules in favor of clinic's client in Magwood v. Patterson, holding on remand from an earlier clinic victory on procedural grounds in the Supreme Court, that the State of Alabama may not execute Magwood because his crime did not render him eligible for the death penalty.
    • December 14, 2011: Clinic files brief in opposition to certiorari in Fast v. Applebee's International, Inc., urging Court to forego review of a decision holding that an employer may not take a "tip credit" under the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum–wage laws when an employee spends more than twenty percent of her time doing work that does not produce tips.
    • December 14, 2011: Clinic files brief on the merits in Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, involving whether plaintiffs seeking damages under the Torture Victim Protection Act may sue not only natural persons but also organizations responsible for the human rights violations at issue.
    • November 16, 2011: Clinic files brief in opposition to certiorari in Alvis v. Espinosa, urging the Court to forego review of a decision holding that police officers may be held liable for shooting and killing an unarmed man following an unconstitutional entry into an apartment.
    • October 11, 2011: Court grants clinic client's petition for certiorari in Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., which presents the question whether the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act's prohibition against charging unearned fees applies only to kickbacks or also where the entity making the loan simply pockets the fraudulent charge.
    • October 3, 2011: Court denies petition for certiorari in National Conference of Bar Examiners v. Enyart, thus leaving clinic's client's victory in place, giving her the right to certain accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act in order to take the bar exam.
    • June 23, 2011: Court rules in favor of clinic's client in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, holding that the prosecution violates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause when it introduces one person's forensic lab report through the in-court testimony of a different analyst. The opinion is here. See coverage on SCOTUSBlog and the New York Times.
    • May 26, 2011: Court rules in favor of clinic's client in United States v. Tinklenberg, holding that the federal Speedy Trial Act excludes allows only ten calendar days beyond its 70-day limit for purposes of transporting defendants to competency examinations. The opinion is here.
    • May 23, 2011: Court rules in favor of clinic's client, the California Correctional and Peace Officers Association, in Brown v. Plata, holding that the State must reduce its prison population by tens of thousands of inmates in order to provide constitutionally adequate health care services to prisoners. The opinion is here. See coverage in the New York Times.
    • April 22, 2011: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Heydt-Benjamin v. Heydt-Benjamin, involving the standard for determining a child's country of "habitual residence" under Hague Convention on the International Aspects of Child Abduction, which requires countries to return abducted children to their countries of habitual residence.
    • April 20, 2011: Court rules against clinic's client in Sossamon v. Texas, holding 6-2 that states are immune from lawsuits under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) seeking money damages. See coverage in the ABA Journal and UPI.
    • April 4, 2011: Court grants clinic's petition for certiorari in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, which presents the issue whether a jail may conduct suspicionless strip searches of all admittees no matter what the charges or circumstances of their arrests. See coverage on SCOTUSblog and Westlaw News & Insight.
    • April 4, 2011: Court grants clinic's petition for certiorari in Greene v. Fisher, presenting the issue whether a state prisoner may obtain federal habeas corpus relief based on a violation of a U.S. Supreme Court decision announced after the last state-court decision on the merits of his direct appeal but before that appeal became final. See coverage on SCOTUSblog
    • March 2, 2011: Clinic argues for the petitioner in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, a case which raises the question whether the prosecution in a criminal case violates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause when it introduces a nontestifying forensic analyst's report through the in-court testimony of a different analyst. Clinic co-director Jeffrey Fisher argued on behalf of Mr. Bullcoming, and law students Masha Hansford, Jud Campbell, Kyle Maurer and Jacqueline de Armas, who helped write the clinic's briefs, attended the argument. For past briefs and to view the argument transcript, see coverage on SCOTUSblog
    • February 22, 2011: Clinic argues for respondent in United States v. Tinklenberg (see January 14, 2011 entry below). Clinic co-director Jeffrey Fisher argued on behalf of Mr. Tinklenberg, and law student Matthew Seligman, who helped write the clinic's merits brief, attended the argument. For past briefs and to view the argument transcript, see coverage on SCOTUSBlog.
    • January 19, 2011: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholdersof the County of Burlington, raising the question whether the Fourth Amendment permits a jail to conduct suspicionless strip searches of every person arrested for a minor offense, no matter what the circumstances.
    • January 14, 2011: Clinic files merits brief for respondent in United States v. Tinklenberg, arguing that the filing of unopposed, administrative pretrial motions does not toll the deadline for commencing a federal criminal trial under the Speedy Trial Act.
    • November 30, 2010: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Edwards v. A.H. Cornell & Son, Inc., raising the question whether an employer violates the anti-retaliation provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) when it fires an employee for making unsolicited internal complaints to management about ERISA violations.
    • November 12, 2010: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Greene v. Palakovich, raising the question of whether a state prisoner can seek federal habeas corpus relief based on Supreme Court decisions that were announced before his conviction became final but after the last reasoned state-court decision rejecting his claim.
    • October 25, 2010: Clinic files brief on the merits for the California Correctional and Peace Officers Association in Schwarzenegger v. Plata and Coleman, contending that a California district court properly applied the remedial provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act in requiring the State to cap its prison population at certain levels in order to cure its ongoing inability to provide medical care to inmates at the minimum level required by the Eighth Amendment.
    • September 16, 2010: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Zuress v. Donley, involving the circumstances under which dual-status technicians, who perform civilian roles in military departments, may seek redress under federal statutes prohibiting employment discrimination.
    • August 30, 2010: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Castro v. United States, raising questions involving the Federal Tort Claims Act's application to torts comitted by law enforcement agents (here, deporting a child who was a U.S. Citizen, over her U.S. Citizen mother's objection without any cause) that also exceed their statutory or constitutional authority. A copy of the petition is available here. See coverage in the New York Times.
    • June 24, 2010: Court rules for clinic's client in Magwood v. Patterson, holding that a state prisoner may seek federal habeas relief from a new death sentence on any constitutional basis, regardless of whether he could have challenged a prior, vacated sentence on the same basis. See coverage on SCOTUSBlog.
    • June 24, 2010: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Bannister v. Illinois, presenting the question whether the prosecution in a criminal case may present testimony from an alleged accomplice-turned-informant pursuant to a contract that requires the accomplice to testify consistently with prior statements made to the police.
    • June 2, 2010: Court rules unanimously for clinic's clients in Samantar v. Yousuf, holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not immunize former state officials who acted on behalf of a foreign state from claims brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act. See coverage in the New York Times and on SCOTUSBlog: Analysis and Wednesday Round-Up.
    • May 24, 2010: Court rules unanimously for the clinic's client in United States v. O'Brien, holding that the provision of federal law dictating a thirty-year mandatory minimum sentence for using a machinegun during a crime of voilence establishes an element of the crime that must be proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, not a sentencing factor that can be proven to the judge by a preponderance of the evidence.
    • May 24, 2010: Court unanimously agrees with position clinic advocated on behalf of the International Association of Human Rights Agencies in Lewis v. City of Chicago, holding that the statutory limitations period for bringing employment discrimination claims based on an employer's use of a practice that has an allegedly disparate impact runs from any time the employer uses the practice, without regard to when the employer first announced it would implement the practice. See the SCOTUSblog entry.
    • May 24, 2010: Court grants clinic's petition for certiorari in Sossamon v. Texas, involving the question whether plaintiffs may recover money damages against the state or its officials for violating the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and, if so, whether Congress had the constitutional authority to provide for such damages.
    • May 17, 2010: Court rules for clinic's client in Abbott v. Abbott, holding that a parent violates the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction when she takes a child out of his country of residence in contravention of a local ban on doing so without the other parent's consent. As a result of the Court's holding, the parent must return the child to his previous residence. See coverage on SCOTUSBlog: 5/18/10 article and 5/17/10 article.
    • May 13, 2010: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Allshouse v. Pennsylvania, raising the question whether the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce into evidence at trial an interview a child protection worker conducted with a child witness, as a substitute for calling the witness to the stand.
    • April 20, 2010: Court rules for clinic's client in Jerman v. Carslile, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, holding that a debt collector's legal (as opposed to factual) error cannot exempt it from liability for abusive or deceptive debt collection practices under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. See coverage on SCOTUSBlog.
    • April 19, 2010: Court rules for clinic's client in United States v. Stevens, holding that the federal statute prohibiting the sales of depictions of "animal cruelty" sweeps so broadly so as to violate the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. See coverage on the front page of the New York Times.
    • March 2, 2010: Court rules for clinic's clients in Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, holding that federal courts have jurisdiction to accept settlements of copyright infringement cases even when some of the works at issue have not been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.
    • January 20, 2010: Clinic files merits brief for respondents in Samantar v. Yousuf, involving the question whether former state officials who tortured individuals on behalf of a foreign state are immune from damages under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
    • January 19, 2010: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Pendergrass v. Indiana, raising the question of whether a criminal defendant is accorded his Sixth Amendment right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him" when the prosecution introduces a forensic laboratory report through the testimony of a different analyst than the one who authored the report.
    • January 8, 2010: Court grants clinic's petition for certiorari in Dolan v. United States, involving whether federal courts have the power to enter victim restitution orders after the statutory time period for doing so has expired.
    • November 30, 2009: Court denies certiorari in Virginia v. Rudolph, leaving in place the Clinic's client's victory in the Virginia Supreme Court on the ground that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the police arrested and searched him without reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity.
    • November 30, 2009: Clinic files amicus brief on behalf of the International Association of Human Rights Agencies in Lewis v. City of Chicago, arguing that the statutory limitations period for bringing employment discrimination claims based on an employer's use of a practice that has an allegedly disparate impact runs from any time the employer uses the practice, without regard to when the employer first announced it would implement the practice.
    • November 16, 2009: Court grants clinic's petition for certiorari in Magwood v. Culliver, concerning a death row inmate's right to challenge his resentencing in federal habeas corpus proceedings. See coverage on SCOTUSBlog and New York Times.
    • September 23, 2009: Clinic files petition for certiorari, in Dolan v. United States, presenting the question whether federal courts have the power to enter restitution orders after the statutory time for doing so has expired.
    • August 5, 2009: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Magwood v. Culliver, concerning the constitutionality of a death sentence a federal court of appeals reinstated against an Alabama prisoner, after he obtained federal habeas corpus relief on the grounds that the Alabama courts unforeseeably and retroactively changed state law in order to sentence him to death, and that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective.
    • June 29, 2009: Court grants clinic's petition for certiorari in Abbott v. Abbott, presenting the question whether the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction requires the United States to return a child to his country of habitual residence when one parent takes the child to this country in violation of the other parent's legal right to prevent the child from being taken without his or her consent.
    • June 25, 2009: Court rules 5-4 for the clinic's client in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause prohibits the prosecution in a criminal case from introducing a forensic laboratory report in place of live testimony from the analyst who performed the testing. The ruling requires most states across the country to adjust their practices in this area. See coverage in the New York Times, the Washington Post (here and here) and SCOTUS Blog.
    • May 18, 2009: Court rejects clinic's position in AT&T v. Hulteen, holding that employers do not violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act by giving women smaller pensions based on pregnancy leaves they took prior to the Act's enactment. See coverage in the New York Times.
    • May 18, 2009: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Sossamon v. Texas, presenting the question whether individuals may sue state officials for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA).
    • May 15, 2009: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Burkey v. Marberry, involving whether a federal prisoner's petition for habeas corpus becomes moot when the Bureau of Prisons releases him from custody but continues to exercise control over him in the form of supervised release.
    • May 13, 2009: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Daniels v. Washington, which involves the Double Jeopardy Clause's limitations on re-prosecuting individuals for offenses after juries in their first trials found them guilty only of lesser charges.
    • May 4, 2009: Court rules unanimously for clinic's client in Flores-Figueroa v. United States, holding that a person does not violate the federal aggravated identity theft statute if he uses a false identification but does not know that it belongs to another person. See coverage of the decision's criminal law and immigration ramifications here and here in the New York Times.
    • April 28, 2009: The Court rules 6-3 for the clinic's client in Cone v. Bell, holding that lower federal courts improperly rejected a death row inmate's claim for habeas relief based on the prosecution's suppression of key evidence and its misrepresentations to state and federal appellate courts regarding the case's procedural history. See coverage in the Washington Post.
    • April 21, 2009: The Court, in Arizona v. Gant, follows the argument the clinic advanced in an amicus brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and holds that the Fourth Amendment permits police officers to search someone's car after arresting and handcuffing him only if the officers have reason to believe the car contains evidence of the crime giving rise to the arrest. The decision significantly enhances individual privacy over previously existing law. See coverage in the New York Times.
    • March 25, 2009: Clinic files amicus brief on behalf of House Judiciary Committee Leadership in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility Dist. No. 1 v. Eric Holder, defending the constitutionality of the provisions of the Voting Rights Act that require certain jurisdictions across the country to obtain preclearance from the Department of Justice before changing voting practices or procedures.
    • March 25, 2009: Clinic files amicus brief on behalf of the ACLU, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF in Ricci v. DeStefano, arguing that employers' decisions to abandon job tests that have disparate effects on minority workers do not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
    • March 20, 2009: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Dunphy v. United States, presenting the question whether courts may impose sentences below the ranges dictated by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines when resentencing offenders pursuant to retroactive amendments to the Guidelines, such as the amendments reducing the disparity between crack and power cocaine offenses.
    • February 2, 2009: Clinic files amicus brief on behalf of Eleven Individuals Who Obtained Clemency Through DNA Testing in District Attorney's Office v. Osborne, arguing that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to biological material within a state's control when performing DNA testing on that material could demonstrate the prisoners' innocence.
    • January 14, 2009: Court rules against clinic's client and holds 5-4 that the Fourth Amendment does not require courts to suppress evidence that the police obtain pursuant to unlawful arrests caused by negligent recordkeeping. See coverage in New York Times and USA Today.
    • January 13, 2009: The Court rules unanimously for the clinic's client in Jimenez v. Quarterman, holding that the time period for seeking federal habeas corpus relief restarts when a state prisoner has his direct appeal reinstated by state courts.
    • January 5, 2009: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service, asking the Court to clarify—in the context of a Native American sacred site— when governmental action "substantially burdens" the free exercise of religion and thus triggers the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act.
    • December 23, 2008: Clinic files amicus brief on behalf of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Kansas v. Ventris, which concerns whether the prosecution may introduce statements obtained in violation of the accused's Sixth Amendment right to counsel against him as impeachment evidence. The brief highlights the dangers of "jailhouse snitch" testimony, the specific type of evidence at issue in the case.
    • November 10, 2008: Clinic files brief in opposition to certiorari in Polar Tankers v. City of Valdez, Alaska, a case presenting the question whether a municipal property tax on oil tankers runs afoul of the Tonnage Clause, the Commerce Clause, or the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
    • November 6, 2008: Clinic files an amicus brief in support of certiorari on behalf of various consumer rights and civil rights groups in Cuomo v. The Clearing House Ass'n, L.L.C., which involves whether the federal government may prohibit states from enforcing state laws that prohibit predatory and discriminatory lending practices.
    • October 20, 2008: The Supreme Court grants the clinic's petition for certiorari in Flores-Figueroa v. United States, which presents the question whether a person can be found guilty of aggravated identity theft for using what he believes is a fictitious social security number, rather than the number of another person. See coverage in the New York Times and on SCOTUSBlog.
    • October 15, 2008: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Mitchell v. Rees, involving whether a litigant may seek to alter or amend a previous decision under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) more than one year after the decision became final by showing that the decision involved an admitted legal error and extraordinary circumstances that prevented the litigant from seeking relief sooner.
    • July 25, 2008: Clinic files amicus brief on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Arizona v. Gant, arguing that the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from conducting a warrantless search of a vehicle incident to arresting the driver for a traffic offense.
    • July 22, 2008: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Flores-Figueroa v. United States, presenting the question whether an individual, in order to be convicted of aggravated identity theft, must know that an identification he used without legal authority actually belonged to another person. See coverage on SCOTUSBlog.
    • June 25, 2008: Court accepts clinic's argument in Kennedy v. Louisiana, and holds that the Eighth Amendment does not allow the death penalty to be imposed for any crime against an individual in which the victim does not die. The ruling invalidates capital child rape laws in Louisiana and five other states. See coverage in the New York Times and SCOTUSBlog.
    • June 23, 2008: Court rules for the clinic in Greenlaw v. United States, holding that courts of appeals may not increase criminal defendants' sentences when the government does not appeal those sentences. See coverage on SCOTUSBlog.
    • June 23, 2008: Court grants clinic's petition for certiorari in Cone v. Bell, involving the ability of a defendant sentenced to death to challenge the State's suppression of evidence at his trial. See coverage in the New York Times and SCOTUSBlog.
    • June 23, 2008: Court grants certiorari in AT&T v. Hulteen, presenting the question whether federal anti-discrimination law, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, allows companies, when calculating seniority for purposes of paying current pension benefits, to award less service credit for pre-1978 leaves of absence due to pregnancies than for pre-1978 leaves due to other medical conditions and temporary disabilities. The clinic represents the respondents. See coverage in the Washington Post and SCOTUSBlog.
    • June 23, 2008: Court denies certiorari in Dillard County v. Chilton, a voting rights case in which the clinic successfully represented the respondents.
    • June 19, 2008: Court rules for the clinic in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, holding that an employer, not an employee, bears the burden under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of proving that it fired employees based on "reasonable factors other than age." See coverage in the New York Times and SCOTUSBlog.
    • June 4, 2008: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Lee v. Louisiana, raising the question whether the Sixth Amendment's jury trial clause, as applied to states through the Fourteenth Amendment, permits a criminal conviction by means of a non-unanimous jury verdict. See coverage in the National Law Journal
    • June 2, 2008: Court holds in Richlin Security Serv. v. Chertoff, that a prevailing party may recover paralegal fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. This holding accords with the amicus brief the clinic filed on behalf of the National Association of Legal Assistance and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. See coverage on SCOTUSBlog.
    • April 16, 2008: Court rejects the clinic's position in Burgess v. United States and holds that a person convicted of a federal drug crime may have his sentence enhanced based on prior state-law misdemeanor convictions for crimes that were punishable by more than one year. See coverage on SCOTUSBlog.
    • April 14, 2008: Court denies certiorari in Lawler v. Nara, in which the clinic represented the respondent, a man who had been awarded federal habeas corpus relief by the court of appeals.

    Selected Cases

    Selected Pending Cases

    • Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, involving the test for determining whether a floating structure on water constitutes a "vessel" triggering federal maritime law and jurisdiction. The Court will hear oral argument in October of 2012.
    • Moncrieffe v. Holder, a case involving whether a non-citizen must be automatically deported if he is convicted in state court of distributing a minimal amount of marijuana for no remuneration. The Court will hear oral argument in October of 2012.
    • Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., involving whether the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act's prohibition against charging unearned fees applies only to kickbacks or also where the entity making the loan simply pockets the fraudulent charge. The Court heard oral argument in February and a decision is expected later this year.
    • Delling v. Idaho, a case involving whether state laws abolishing the insanity defense in criminal cases violate the Due Process Clause. The Court is expected to decide later this year whether to hear the case.

    Completed Cases in Which Clinic Was Lead
    or Co-Lead Counsel on the Merits

    (*denotes that clinic instructor argued case)

    1. *Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 132 S. Ct. 1702 (2012): The clinic represented the family of an American citizen who was tortured and killed in the West Bank and sued the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority for the conduct, arguing that not only natural persons but organizations on behalf of which they act can be held liable under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). The Court unanimously rejected the argument, holding that the TVPA's cause of action against "individuals" is limited to natural persons.
    2. *Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012): The clinic represented a man that the police erroneously arrested for failure to pay a fine and then strip searched on his way into jail and successfully sought certiorari, arguing that the jail violated the Fourth Amendment by conducting that search without any reason to believe it might find any contraband. The Court disagreed by a 5-4 vote, holding that such strip searches are constitutional.
    3. Golan v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 873 (2012): The clinic, in connection with Stanford's Fair Use Project, represented a group of composers and other artists seeking to invalidate the Copyright Restoration Act and successfully sought certiorari, arguing that the Act violated the Constitution's Copyright Clause and the First Amendment. The Court disagreed by a 6–2 vote, holding that Congress has the authority to restore copyright protection to works previously in the public domain.
    4. *Greene v. Fisher, 132 S. Ct. 38 (2011): The clinic represented a state prisoner seeking a federal habeas corpus relief and successfully sought certiorari, arguing that a Supreme Court decision handed down before his conviction became final, but after the state courts rejected his appeals, entitled him to a new trial. The Court unanimously disagreed, holding that federal law now prohibits habeas relief based on cases announced after the last state-court consideration of the issue.
    5. *Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011): The clinic represented the defendant in a criminal case, arguing that that the prosecution violates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause when it introduces one person's forensic lab report through the in-court testimony of a different analyst. The Court agreed by a 5-4 vote.
    6. *United States v. Tinklenberg, 131 S. Ct. 2007 (2011): The clinic represented the defendant, arguing that the federal Speedy Trial Act was violated in his case. The Court unanimously agreed, holding that the court of appeals had erroneously refused to exclude all of the days beyond ten calendar days while he was being transported to competency determinations.
    7. Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910 (2011): The clinic represented plaintiff-intervenor the California Correctional and Peace Officers Association, arguing that the Prison Litigation Reform Act required the State the reduce its prison population by tens of thousands of inmates in order to provide constitutionally adequate health care services to prisoners. The Court agreed by a 5-4 vote.
    8. *Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651 (2011): The clinic represented an inmate of a Texas prison whose rights prison officials had violated under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and successfully sought certiorari, arguing that he should be able to recover money damages from the state for the violations. The Court disagreed by a 6-2 vote, holding that states' sovereign immunity protects them from having to pay such damages.
    9. *Magwood v. Patterson, 130 S. Ct. 2788 (2010): The clinic represented petitioner, an Alabama state prisoner, and successfully sought certiorari, arguing that he should be released from death row because the circumstances of his crime did not render him eligible for capital punishment. The Eleventh Circuit had held that Magwood had waived his ability to bring any such claim, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision by a 5-4 vote, reinstating Magwood's right to avoid execution for a noncapital offense.
    10. *Dolan v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2533 (2010): The clinic represented petitioner and successfully sought certiorari, arguing that federal courts lacked the power to enter a restitution order beyond the statutory time limit for doing so. The Supreme Court disagreed by a 5-4 vote, holding that the time limit is not binding.
    11. Samantar v. Yousuf, 130 S. Ct. 2278 (2010): The clinic represented Somali torture victims who sued a former Somali governmental official, seeking redress for their injuries under the Alien Tort Claims Act. The defendant argued that he was immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, but the Court unanimously rejected the argument, allowing the plaintiffs' suit to go forward.
    12. *United States v. O'Brien, 130 S. Ct. 2169 (2010): The clinic represented an individual convicted under a federal statute requiring mandatory minimum sentences for using firearms in relation to crimes of violence, including a thirty-year sentence for using a machinegun in relation to such a crime. The Court granted review at government's request to determine whether the machinegun finding was one that the jury need to find beyond a reasonable doubt or one, as the government argued, that the judge could find by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court unanimously rejected the government's argument, affirming Mr. O'Brien's eight-and one-half-year sentence. See coverage on ABC Online and SCOTUSblog.
    13. *Abbott v. Abbott, 130 S. Ct. 1983 (2010): The clinic represented the father of a boy who was taken from Chile to the United States by his mother, in violation of a Chilean "ne exeat" law requiring one parent to get the other's permission before taking a child out of the country. After the father filed suit against the mother and lost in a district court and federal court of appeals, the clinic successfully sought certiorari, and argued on the merits that the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction required the United States to return the child to his country of habitual residence. The Court agreed by a 6-3 vote, holding that the Convention requires signatory countries, including the United States, to respect and enforce "ne exeat" rights.
    14. *Jerman v. Carslile, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 130 S. Ct. 1605 (2010): The clinic represented petitioner and successfully sought certiorari, arguing that a debt collector's legal (as opposed to factual) error cannot exempt it from liability for abusive or deceptive debt collection practices under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Court agreed by a 7-2 vote.
    15. United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct.1577 (2010): The clinic represented a pit bull breeder and documentary filmmaker who was the first and only person ever convicted under a federal statute prohibiting the sales of depictions of "animal cruelty." The clinic argued that the statute violated the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause insofar as its definition of animal cruelty swept far too broadly, covering popular movies and hunting and fishing magazines, and other popular media. The Court agreed, invalidated the statute, and reversed respondent's conviction by an 8-1 vote.
    16. Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237 (2010): The clinic represented a group of freelance writers whose work was posted on various electronic databases without their permission and, along with other plaintiffs, sought redress under federal copyright law. After a federal court of appeals dismissed the case on the ground that some of the works at issue had not been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, the Supreme Court unanimously reinstated the case, establishing that such registration is not a jurisdictional requirement.
    17. *Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009): The clinic represented the petitioner and successfully sought certiorari, arguing that the prosecution in a criminal case violates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause when it introduces a forensic laboratory report in place of live testimony from the analyst who performed the testing. The Court agreed on the merits by a 5-4 vote, thus requiring a majority of states across the country, as well as the federal government, to alter the way they present forensic evidence.
    18. *AT&T v. Hulteen 129 S. Ct. 1962 (2009): The clinic represented women who took pregnancy leaves prior to the enactment of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), which forbids discrimination on the basis of pregnancy the same bases as sex discrimination. The women, who retired from their jobs during the past decade, argued that their employer violated the PDA by giving them smaller pension benefits than other employees who took other kinds of disability leave during the same periods. The Court disagreed by a 7-2 vote.
    19. *Flores-Figueroa v. United States 129 S. Ct. 1886 (2009): The clinic represented the petitioner and successfully sought certiorari, arguing that a person does not commit federal aggravated identity theft unless he knows that the false identification he uses belongs to another person. The Court unanimously agreed.
    20. *Cone v. Bell, 129 S. Ct. 1769 (2009): The clinic represented the petitioner, a state prisoner under a death sentence, and successfully sought certiorari, arguing that lower federal courts improperly rejected his claim for habeas relief based on the prosecution's suppression of key evidence and its misrepresentations to state and federal appellate courts regarding the case's procedural history. The Court agreed by a 6-3 vote, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
    21. *Waddington v. Sarausad, 129 S. Ct. 823 (2009): The clinic represented the respondent, a state prisoner, arguing that he was entitled to federal habeas relief because the jury likely interpreted the instructions in his case so as to allow it to convict him without finding all of the elements of accomplice liability. The Court disagreed by a 6-3 vote.
    22. *Herring v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 695 (2009): The clinic represented the petitioner and sucessfully sought certiorari, arguing that the Fourth Amendment requires courts to suppress evidence that the police obtain in unlawful arrests based on negligent recordkeeping. The Court disagreed by a 5-4 vote.
    23. *Jimenez v. Quarterman, 129 S. Ct. 681 (2009): The clinic represented the petitioner, arguing that the time period for seeking federal habeas corpus relief restarts when a state prisoner has his direct appeal reinstated by state courts. The Court unanimously agreed and reversed the decision below that had dismissed petitioner's claims.
    24. *Kennedy v. Louisiana, 128 S. Ct. 2641 (2008): The clinic represented the petitioner and successfully sought certiorari, arguing that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause prohibits a state from imposing the death penalty for the crime of child rape. The Court agreed on the merits and held, by a 5-4 vote, that the Eighth Amendment does not allow the death penalty to be imposed for any crime against an individual in which the victim does not die.
    25. *Greenlaw v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 2559 (2008): The clinic represented the petitioner and successfully sought certiorari, arguing that a court of appeals may not increase a criminal defendant's sentence when the government does not appeal the sentence. The Court agreed on the merits by a 7-2 vote.
    26. *Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 128 S. Ct. 2395 (2008): The clinic represented the petitioner, arguing that an employer, not an employee, bears the burden under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of proving that it took adverse action against older employees based on a "reasonable factor other than age." The Court agreed by a 7-1 vote.
    27. *Riley v. Kennedy, 128 S. Ct. 1970 (2008): The clinic represented the appellees, arguing that the Alabama Governor's use of an appointment to fill a vacancy on the Mobile County Commission was a change in voting practice requiring "preclearance" from the federal government under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court disagreed by a 7-2 vote and held that under the particular circumstances at issue, preclearance was not required.
    28. Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 128 S. Ct. 1610 (2008): The clinic represented the petitioners, arguing that Indiana's "voter ID" law violated the First Amendment by unreasonably burdening the right to vote. The Court held by a 6-3 vote that even though future lawsuits might show that the law violates particular individuals' rights, the law is not unconstitutional on its face.
    29. *Virginia v. Moore, 128 S. Ct. 1598 (2008): The clinic represented the respondent, arguing that a search that the police conduct pursuant to an arrest based on probable cause but that nonetheless violates state law violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously ruled for the Commonwealth.
    30. *Burgess v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 1572 (2008): The clinic represented the petitioner, arguing that a person convicted of a federal drug crime may not have his sentence enhanced on the basis of having previously committed a "felony drug offense" when the prior offense at issue was a misdemeanor under state law but was also punishable by more than one year. The Court unanimously ruled for the government.
    31. Wilkie v. Robbins, 127 S. Ct. 2588 (2007): The clinic represented the respondent, arguing that the federal Bureau of Land Development and certain federal officials violated RICO and his constitutional rights by extorting an easement across his ranch from him. The Court rejected the argument, holding 7-2 that these allegations did not state any federal cause of action.
    32. *Burton v. Stewart, 127 S. Ct. 793 (2007): The clinic represented the petitioner, arguing that state prisoners are entitled to retroactive benefit of the Court's holding in Blakely v. Washington that "aggravating facts" subjecting them to longer sentences must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court dismissed the case after argument on jurisdictional grounds without reaching the question presented.
    33. *Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 127 S. Ct. 2162 (2007): After successfully seeking certiorari, the clinic represented the petitioner, arguing that each time an employee receives a smaller paycheck than her coworkers because she is a woman, the paycheck gives rise to a Title VII claim for pay discrimination. The Court rejected that argument, holding by a 5-4 vote that disparate pay claims must be brought within 180 days of the date the employer initially set the disparate pay levels.
    34. *United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006): The clinic represented the respondent, arguing that a trial court's unjustified refusal to allow a criminal defendant to be represented by his counsel of choice violates the Sixth Amendment and requires automatic reversal on appeal. The Court agreed by a 5-4 vote.
    35. *Whitman v. Department of Transportation, 547 U.S. 512 (2006): The clinic represented the petitioner and successfully sought certiorari, arguing that the Civil Service Reform Act does not preclude federal employees from bringing constitutional and statutory claims in federal court before they have exhausted the administrative grievance process. The Court unanimously agreed and remanded the case for further proceedings.
    36. *Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006): The clinic represented the respondent, arguing that the Fourth Amendment does not allow the police to search a house without a search warrant when one resident consents to the search but another resident objects. The Court agreed by a 5-3 vote.
    37. Domino's Pizza v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (2006): The clinic represented the respondent, arguing that a plaintiff may advance a claim for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 even when he never entered into a contractual relationship with the defendant. The Court disagreed, holding unanimously that the agent of a party to a contract cannot state a claim under § 1981, because he himself does not have rights to make or enforce under the contract.
    38. Bank of China v. NBM, LLC, 546 U.S. 1026 (2005): The clinic represented the respondents, arguing that civil RICO plaintiffs alleging mail and wire fraud as predicate acts must establish that they reasonably relied on those improper acts. After the clinic filed its brief on the merits, the petitioner withdrew its challenge to the lower court opinion.
    39. *Tum v. Barber Foods, 546 U.S. 21 (2005): The clinic represented the petitioner and successfully sought certiorari, arguing that the Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to compensate workers for the time spent walking to work stations from the place where they must obtain and put on mandatory safety equipment. The Court agreed in a unanimous decision.
    40. *Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119 (2005): The clinic represented the petitioners and successfully sought certiorari, arguing that the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to foreign-flagged cruise ships operating in United States waters. The Court agreed by a 6-3 vote.
    41. *Rousey v. Jacoway, 544 U.S. 320 (2005): The clinic represented the petitioners and successfully sought certiorari, arguing debtors may exempt personal IRA's from their estates for purposes of filing petitions for bankruptcy. The Court unanimously agreed.
    42. *Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005): The clinic represented the petitioners and successfully sought certiorari, arguing that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act recognizes claims for actions that, while not intended to have a discriminatory effect, nonetheless unjustifiably and disproportionately disadvantage older workers. The Court agreed by an 8-0 vote, but ultimately held that the petitioners' particular disparate impact claim lacked merit.
    43. Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S 209 (2005): The clinic represented the petitioners and successfully sought certiorari, arguing that, in order to convict someone for conspiracy to commit money laundering, the federal government must prove an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The Court unanimously ruled for the government.

    Contact Information

    Supreme Court Litigation Clinic
    Administration Building - Law Clinic - B01
    Stanford Law School
    Crown Quadrangle
    559 Nathan Abbott Way
    Stanford, CA 94305-8610
    650 725.4851

    Related Links

    Related SLS Links

    Blogs

    Related