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 professors Pam Karlan and Jeff Fisher and lecturers Tom Goldstein, Amy Howe, and Kevin Russell, 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. It has compiled a record at both the certiorari and merits stages that would be the envy of any appellate practice. Over the past three years alone, the clinic has represented parties in fifteen cases on the merits, winning a substantial majority of those cases.

Students prepare 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 three briefs over the course of a semester. 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 Supreme Court case with students from Stanford

Clinic News

Recent filings and developments

  • April 9, 2008: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Kay v. United States, presenting two issues: (1)whether the omission of an element from a grand jury indictment can constitute harmless error; and (2) whether the government can overcome the rule of lenity, which holds that ambiguities in criminal laws should be resolved in favor of the accused, based on legislative history and general policy considerations.
  • March 17, 2008: Court grants certiorari in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 07-591, presenting the question whether the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution in a criminal case may introduce a written crime laboratory report as a substitute for live testimony from the forensic examiner who prepared it. The case will be argued in the fall of 2008. The Clinic represents the petitioner. See coverage in the New York Times and SCOTUSBlog.
  • February 25, 2008: Clinic files 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.
  • February 19, 2008: Court grants certiorari in Herring v. United States, involving the question whether a federal court must suppress evidence that police officers seize pursuant to erroneous information that another law enforcement agency negligently provided to it. The clinic represents the petitioner. The case will be argued in October. See coverage in the New York Times and the L.A. Times.
  • February 18, 2008: Clinic files amicus brief on behalf of the AARP and other groups in Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, involving the legality of a California law prohibiting companies from using state funds toward supporting or opposing union organizing efforts.
  • January 18, 2008: Court grants certiorari in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, involving how to prove the defense under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act that the employer took the action at issue for a "reasonable factor other than age." The clinic represents the petitioner - this being the sixth case this semester in which the clinic will argue a case on behalf of a party. See coverage in the New York Times.
  • Jan. 4, 2008: Court grants certiorari in Kennedy v. Louisiana, involving whether the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause permits a state to punish the crime of child rape with the death penalty. The clinic represents the petitioner. See coverage in the New York Times, LA Times and SCOTUSBlog.
  • Jan. 4, 2008: Court grants certiorari in Greenlaw v. United States, which presents the question whether a federal court of appeals may increase a criminal defendant's sentence when the government does not request such an increase in a cross-appeal. The clinic represents the petitioner. See coverage on SCOTUSBlog.
  • Dec. 21, 2007: Clinic files brief in opposition 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.
  • Dec. 7, 2007: Court grants certiorari in Burgess v. United States, presenting the question whether a person convicted of a federal drug crime who has a prior state misdemeanor conviction is subject to the federal law requiring a minimum twenty-year sentence for certain repeat offenders. The petitioner retains the clinic to represent him. See coverage on SCOTUSBlog.
  • Nov. 20, 2007: Court postpones jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits in Riley v. Kennedy, which involves whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required Alabama to obtain preclearance of its plan to fill vacancies on a county commission through gubernatorial rather than special elections. The clinic represents the appellees. See coverage on SCOTUS Blog and Votelaw.
  • Nov. 5, 2007: Petitioner Crawford's brief on the merits in Crawford v. Marion County Bd. of Elections, which the clinic co-authored, is filed.
  • Nov. 5, 2007: Clinic files brief in opposition in Dickinson v. Collier, in which various state officials from Florida are asking the Court to review whether plaintiffs may sue them and seek damages for violating provisions of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act that prohibit states from disseminating motor vehicle registration information to telemarketers and other third parties without consent.
  • Oct. 23, 2007: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Beasley v. United States, involving a criminal defendant's ability to obtain relief due to the government's seeking a sentence enhancement in after the deadline for seeking such an enhancement.
  • Oct. 22, 2007: Clinic files a motion to dismiss or affirm in Riley v. Kennedy, involving whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required Alabama to obtain preclearance of its plan to fill vacancies on a county commission through gubernatorial appointments rather than special elections.
  • Oct. 15, 2007: Clinic files brief in opposition to certiorari in NCAA v. Cohane, involving whether the NCAA operated as a "state actor" — and thus subject to constitutional constraints — when it coordinated with a state university in ingestigating and reprimanding a college basketball coach.
  • Oct. 11, 2007: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Herring v. United States, raising the question whether the Fourth Amendment requires evidence found during a search incident to arrest to be suppressed when the arresting officer conducted the arrest in reliance upon facially credible but erroneous information negligently provided by another law enforcement agent.
  • Sept. 25, 2007: Court grants certiorari in Virginia v. Moore, a case in which the clinic reprensents the respondent and presenting the question whether police violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures when they arrest and search a person for a minor state-law offense that the state could, but has chosen not to, make an arrestable offense. See coverage on SCOTUSBlog.
  • Sept. 25, 2007: Court grants certiorari in Crawford v. Marion County Bd. of Elections, a case involving whether Indiana's "voter ID" law — which requires those seeking to vote in-person at polling places to present a valid government-issued photo identification — violates the First Amendment by unduly burdening the right to vote. See coverage in SCOTUSBlog and the New York Times. The clinic is now co-counsel for the petitioner.
  • Sept. 11, 2007: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Kennedy v. Louisiana, raising the question whether the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment allows a state to impose the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. See coverage in SCOTUSBlog and ABCNews.
  • Sept. 7, 2007: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Greenlaw v. United States, asking the question whether an appeals court may lengthen a defendant's sentence when the government does not seek such action.
  • Jeffrey Fisher, leading U.S. Supreme Court Litigator, is appointed co-director of the clinic.
  • The Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic is "the model" for numerous similar ventures at other law schools, according to the Legal Times.
  • The New York Times features the clinic in this story.

Media coverage of selected merits cases

  • In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the Supreme Court rules 5 to 4 against the clinic's client, holding that an employee claiming sex discrimination must file a lawsuit within 180 days of a corporate act that leads to disparate pay, even when the employee does not learn of the discriminatory nature of the act until years later and the company continues to pay her less than male co-workers. Justice Ginsburg, in a rare display of protest, reads portions of her dissent from the bench. See coverage of the case in SCOUTSBlog, New York Times (May 29, 2007), New York Times Op-ed (May 31, 2007), New York Times (June 7, 2007), Washington Post Editorial (Aug. 20, 2007), Washington Post Editorial (Sept. 1, 2007), and Washington Post Editorial (Sept. 5, 2007).
  • Supreme Court rules 5 to 4 in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez that a trial court's erroneous deprivation of a criminal defendant's counsel of choice entitles him to reversal of his conviction. Clinic members worked with Jeffrey Fisher, now the clinic's co-director, on both the brief in opposition to certiorari and the respondent's brief on the merits. See coverage of the case in the Legal Times, SCOTUSblog, and the New York Times.
  • In Georgia v. Randolph, the Supreme Court holds by a vote of 5 to 3 that when an individual objects to a warrantless search of his home, the consent of a co-occupant cannot overcome his objection. See coverage of the case in SCOTUSblog and Slate
  • In IBP v. Alvarez and Tum v. Barber Foods, the Supreme Court holds unanimously that workers must be compensated for the time spent walking between the factory floor and the area where they change into required safety gear. SCOTUSblog has this coverage of the decision.
  • Supreme Court rules 6 to 3 that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to foreign-flag cruise ships in the clinic's case Douglas Spector, et al. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. (03-1388). See coverage in the New York Times, analysis in SCOTUSblog, and statements from the petitioners and legal counsel.

Selected Pending Cases

  • Crawford v. Marion County Bd. of Elections, a case involving whether Indiana's "voter ID" law—which requires those seeking to vote in-person at polling places to present a valid government-issued photo identification—violates the First Amendment by unduly burdening the right to vote. The clinic is co-counsel for the petitioner in the case, which was be argued in January of 2008.
  • Virginia v. Moore, a case presenting the question whether police violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures when they arrest and search a person for a minor state-law offense that the state could, but has chosen not to, make an arrestable offense. The clinic is representing the respondent in the case, which which clinic lecturer Tom Goldstein argued in January of 2008. A decision is expected before mid-summer of 2008.
  • Kennedy v. Louisiana, a case presenting the question whether the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment allows a state to impose the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. The clinic represents the petitioner, who is the only person in the United States on death row for a non-homicide offense. Clinic professor Jeff Fisher argued the case on April 16, 2008, and a decision is expected by mid-summer of 2008.
  • Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, a case raising the question whether Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause allows the prosecution in a criminal case to introduce a forensic laboratory report against the defendant in lieu of calling the forensic examiner to testify at trial. The clinic represents the petitioner in the case. The case will be argued in November of 2008.
  • AT&T v. Hulteen, a case 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 is co-counsel for the respondents. The Court is expected to announce in later in 2008 whether it will grant review in the case.

Recently Decided Cases

  • Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 127 S. Ct. 2162 (2007), a case addressing the statute of limitations for filing an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Clinic instructor Kevin Russell argued the case on behalf or the petitioner in December 2006. In June 2007, the Court held 5 to 4 that employees claiming discrimination must file a lawsuit within 180 days of a corporate act that leads to disparate pay, even if the employee does not learn of the discriminatory nature of the act until years later and even if the company continues to pay her less than male co-workers. The House of Representatives swiftly passed legislation — entitled the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — to overturn this result. Mr. Russell helped Ms. Ledbetter prepare for her congressional testimony in support of the legislation.
  • United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, a case addressing a defendant's right to his counsel of choice. Clinic co-director Jeffrey Fisher argued the case on behalf of respondent in April 2006; in June 2006, the Court agreed with respondent that a trial court's erroneous deprivation of a criminal defendant's choice of counsel entitles him to an automatic reversal of his conviction. See coverage on SCOTUSBlog.
  • Whitman v. United States Department of Transportation, a case addressing the availability in federal courts of equitable relief for constitutional claims brought by federal employees against their employer, as well as the availability of direct judicial review for federal employees under the Civil Service Reform Act. Clinic co-director Pamela Karlan argued the case on behalf of petitioner in December 2005; on June 5, 2006, the case was vacated and remanded to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings.
  • Burlington Northern v. White, a case in which the Court addressed the proper standard for assessing retaliation complaints under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The clinic filed an amicus brief on behalf of the National Women's Law Center and other civil rights organizations supporting the employee. In June 2006, the Court adopted the legal standard advocated in the clinic's brief and reversed the lower court's decision.
  • Georgia v. Randolph, a case addressing the validity of a warrantless search made over a co-occupant's objection. Clinic instructor Tom Goldstein argued the case on behalf of respondent in November 2005; on March 22, 2006, the Court agreed with respondent that the search of his home over his objection was invalid.
  • IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez & Tum v. Barber Foods, Inc., addressing the compensability under the Fair Labor Standards Act of time spent by employees walking between the area where they change into mandatory protective clothing and the production area. The clinic represented the petitioners in Tum, and clinic instructor Tom Goldstein argued the case on behalf of workers in both cases in October 2005. In November 2005, the Court agreed with the workers that the walking time was compensable.
  • Smith v. City of Jackson, a case addressing whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Clinic instructor Tom Goldstein argued the case on behalf of the petitioners in November 2004; in March 2005, the Court held that older workers do not have to show intentional discrimination to recover damages under the ADEA.
  • Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., a case addressing the applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act to foreign-flag cruise ships. In February 2005, clinic instructor Tom Goldstein argued the case on behalf of petitioners, disabled cruise ship passengers. On July 6, 2005, the Court held that Title III of the ADA applies to cruise ships generally, and that foreign-flag cruise ships docking in U.S. ports must be accessible to people with disabilities.
  • Rousey v. Jacoway, cert. petition 03-1407 filed April 6, 2004, and granted June 7, 2004. Issue: the applicability of bankruptcy exemptions to money in individual retirement accounts. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled April 4, 2005, that bankruptcy exemptions are applicable to funds held in individual retirement accounts.

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

    • Faculty

    Jeffrey L. Fisher
    Associate Professor of Law (Teaching)
    650 724.7081
    Pamela S. Karlan
    Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law
    650 725.4851

    Lecturers

    Thomas C. Goldstein
    Lecturer in Law
    202 887.4060
    Amy Howe
    Lecturer in Law
    202 237.7543
    Kevin Russell
    Lecturer in Law
    202 237.7543

    Clinic Contacts

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

    Recorded & Past Events

    April 2007

    March 2007

    September 2006

    Contact Information

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

    Clinic Application

    Related Links

    Related Media

    Related SLS Links