Recent Filings and Developments

  • October 16, 2017: Court grants the clinic’s petition for certiorari in Currier v. Virginia, involving how the Double Jeopardy Clause to multiple, overlapping criminal charges when they are severed into two trials and the defendant is acquitted at the first.
  • October 11, 2017: Clinic co-director Jeff Fisher presents oral argument in Jesner v. Arab Bank, involving whether the Alien Tort Statute allows claims for violations of international law to be brought against corporations.  See coverage in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
  • September 7, 2017: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, presenting the question whether Title VII’s ban on employment discrimination because of sex encompasses discrimination based on an employee’s sexual orientation.
  • September 5, 2017: Clinic files an amicus brief in Gill v. Whitford on behalf of several law professors, urging the Court to recognize a justiciable cause of action for unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering.
  • August 2, 2017: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Blackorby v. BNSF Railway Co., involving the standard for when an employer violates the whistleblower protections of the Federal Railroad Safety Act.
  • July 14, 2017: Clinic files cert petition in Pickering v. Colorado, involving the prosecution’s burden of proof in a criminal case when the defendant raises a defense that would negate an element of the alleged offense.
  • June 30, 2017: SCOTUSBlog runs analysis showing that the Clinic was the most successful law office in the country this past Term in the Court.  The Clinic had a 5-0 record on cases it litigated on the merits.
  • June 28, 2017: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, involving whether a First Amendment claim for arrest in retaliation for exercising the right to free speech can succeed if there was probable cause to arrest the speaker.
  • June 22, 2017: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Robinson v. United States, involving whether, or under what circumstances, police officers in a state that allows people to carry firearms in public may search a person they have stopped based on their belief that the person may be armed.
  • June 19, 2017: Court rules unanimously in favor of clinic’s client in Packingham v. North Carolina, holding that a state law barring any person on the state’s sex offender registry from accessing any social media website violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. See coverage in the The New York Times and SCOTUSBlog.
  • May 30, 2017: Court rules for clinic’s client in Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, holding that a conviction for statutory rape involving a victim sixteen years or older does not constitute the aggravated felony of “sexual abuse of a minor” under the Immigration and Nationality Act. See coverage in The New York Times and SCOTUSBlog.
  • May 12, 2017: Clinic files brief responding to the State’s petition for certiorari in Connecticut v. Dickson. The case involves how the Due Process Clause’s protections against unreliable evidence apply to in-court identifications of the defendant as the perpetrator.
  • May 8, 2017: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Currier v. Virginia, involving whether criminal defendants who consent to sequential trials retain their protection under the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause against having to challenge allegations for which they have been acquitted.
  • March 22, 2017: Court unanimously rules in favor of clinic’s client in Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1, holding that the IDEA imposes a “markedly more demanding” duty on the school district than the lower court and majority of others around the country had been requiring.” The clinic, in conjunction with Stanford’s Youth and Education Law Project, represented a child with autism, arguing that his school was not providing him with sufficient services to provide a “free appropriate public education” under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. See coverage in The New York Times here and here, and SCOTUSBlog.
  • March 21, 2017: Court rules 6-2 in favor of clinic’s client in Manuel v. City of Joliet, holding that the Fourth Amendment provided a proper basis for bringing a civil rights lawsuit based on such official misconduct. See coverage in SCOTUSBlog.
  • March 6, 2017: Court rules 5-3 in favor of clinic’s client in Peña-Rodríguez v. Colorado, holding that the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury requires courts to consider post-verdict testimony from jurors concerning racial bias from jurors when offered to prove that such bias infected jury deliberations. See coverage here from The New York Times and here from SCOTUSBlog.
  • February 27, 2017: Clinic presents oral argument in two cases: Packingham v. North Carolina, dealing with how the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause applies to social media, and Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, dealing with deportation law. See New York Times coverage of Packingham here, and coverage from The Economist on Esquivel-Quintana here.
  • January 11, 2017: Clinic instructor Jeff Fisher delivers oral argument in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, involving the level of educational services that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires schools to provide. See coverage in the The New York Times here and here; also see SCOTUSBlog.
  • January 4, 2017: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Garner v. Colorado, concerning whether criminal defendants receive the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment when the actual grounds for their lawyers’ actions were unreasonable but different lawyers might reasonably have taken the same actions to pursue different ends.
  • December 15, 2015: Clinic files opening brief in Packingham v. North Carolina, involving whether a law banning anyone on the state’s sex offender registry from accessing social media websites violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
  • October 28, 2016: Court grants clinic’s petition for certiorari in Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch, concerning whether convictions under broad statutory rape laws subject lawful permanent residents of the United States to mandatory deportation.
  • October 11, 2016: Clinic presents oral argument in Peña-Rodríguez v. Colorado, contending that the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury requires courts in criminal cases to consider juror testimony indicating the racial bias infected deliberations.
  • October 6, 2016: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, presenting the question whether the Alien Tort Statute permits not only individual but also corporate liability for violations of the law of nations.
  • August 22, 2016: Clinic files brief on the merits in Ivy v. Morath, arguing that the State of Texas is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by requiring all persons under twenty-five who wish to obtain drivers licenses to take a private drivers education course, while at the same time failing to require any such course to accommodate people who are hearing impaired.
  • August 18, 2016: The Solicitor General files amicus brief, at the invitation of the Court, in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE-1, supporting the clinic’s petition for certiorari in this case.
  • July 11, 2016: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch, asking whether convictions under broad statutory rape laws subject lawful permanent residents of the United States to mandatory deportation.
  • May 23, 2016: Court rules 7-1 in favor of the clinic’s client in Green v. Brennan, holding that the time for bringing a constructive discharge claim under federal employment discrimination law does not begin running until the employee serves notice of his resignation. See coverage in SCOTUSblog and The National Law Journal.
  • May 2, 2016: Clinic files brief for petitioner on the merits in Manuel v. City of Joliet, arguing that a person can bring a lawsuit against police officers for violating the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures when they cause the person to be charged with a crime and detained without probable cause.
  • April 4, 2016: Court grant’s clinic’s petition for certiorari in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, asking whether Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) – colloquially known as the “no-impeachment” rule – is unconstitutional when it bars the admission of statements showing that racial biased comments infected jury deliberations, when offered to show a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
  • January 13, 2016: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Haberstroh v. Nevada, raising the question whether the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause applies to evidence the prosecution offers during a capital sentencing proceeding to prove the defendant’s eligibility for the death penalty.
  • December 22, 2015: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE-1, involving the level of educational services required to satisfy the requirement of providing a free and appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Court is expected to announce later in 2016 whether to review the case.
  • November 30, 2015: Court hears oral argument in Green v. Brennan, involving the deadline for filing a “constructive discharge” claim under Title VII. Clinic Co-Director Brian Wolfman argues on behalf of petitioner, a longtime postal employee, with the student team in the courtroom.
  • November 12, 2015: Clinic files amicus brief in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association on behalf of public safety unions, urging the Court to reaffirm the ability of states and localities to require public-employee union members to pay fees that facilitate the union’s collective bargaining activities.
  • November 10, 2015: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, raising the question whether courts may refuse to consider juror testimony demonstrating that racial bias infected jury deliberations in a criminal case, when offered to show a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
  • November 2, 2015: Clinic files amicus brief in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin on behalf of the Association of American Law Schools, defending law schools’ use of race as a factor in admissions processes.
  • October 5, 2015: Court hears oral argument in OBB Personerverkehr v. Sachs, involving the scope of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act’s “commercial activity” exception. Clinic Co-Director Jeff Fisher argues on behalf of respondent, a California resident injured in Austria while traveling under a ticket she purchased in the United States, with the student team in the courtroom.
  • July 8, 2015: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Glasmann v. Washington, involving the double jeopardy implications when a jury in a criminal case silent regarding a charged crime but finds the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense.
  • July 6, 2015: Clinic files opening brief in Green v. Brennan, involving the deadline for filing an employment discrimination lawsuit under Title VII for “constructive discharge.”
  • June 26, 2015: Court rules in favor of clinic’s clients in Obergefell v. Hodges, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license and recognize marriages between same-sex couples. See coverage in SCOTUSblog and The New York Times.
  • June 16, 2015: Court rules against clinic’s client in Ohio v. Clark, holding that the introduction of a child’s accusation of abuse made to his teacher without subjecting the child to cross-examination did not violate the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. See coverage here.
  • April 26, 2015: Court grant’s clinic’s petition for certiorari in Green v. Donahoe, involving how to calculate the deadline for filing “constructive discharge” claims under the federal anti-discrimination statutes.
  • April 21, 2015: Court rules in favor of clinic’s clients in Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, holding that the petition for certiorari Natural Gas Act does not preempt state antitrust claims arising from a conspiracy to inflate the retail price of gas. See coverage in JURIST.
  • March 2, 2015: Clinic presents oral argument in Ohio v. Clark, concerning how the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause applies to child witnesses. For coverage, see SCOTUSBlog.
  • February 27, 2015: Clinic files opening brief in Bourke v. Beshear, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from refusing to issue licenses or recognize marriages between same-sex couples.
  • February 11, 2015: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Nguyen v. North Dakota, involving whether or under what circumstances police officers conduct a “search” under the Fourth Amendment when they trespass in common areas of locked apartment buildings to look for evidence of crime.
  • 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.
  • 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 was heard on January 12, 2015. For more information and to view briefs previously filed in the case, see SCOTUSBlog.
  • 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.
  • August 27, 2014: Clinic files brief in Smith v. Bishop, urging the Supreme Court, on behalf of a same-sex couple in Oklahoma, to grant certiorari to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from banning same-sex marriage. See coverage in The Washington Post and on SCOTUSBlog.
  • June 25, 2014: The Court rules unanimously in favor of the clinic’s client in Riley v. California, holding that police are required to obtain warrants in order to search cell phones of those arrested. See coverage in New York Times, SCOTUSblog.
  • 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.
  • January 14, 2014: Court rules against clinic’s clients in Daimler AG v. Bauman, holding that a foreign corporation is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction for injuries allegedly incurred outside of this country. See coverage in the New York Times and on SCOTUSblog.