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 four years, the clinic has represented parties as lead counsel in twenty cases on the merits, winning a 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

Recent filings and developments

  • 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

  • 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 was argued on November 10, 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 case will be argued in late 2008.
  • Herring v. United States, a case involving whether the Fourth Amendment requires that evidence that police officers illegally obtain incident to a warrantless arrest for which there was no probable cause, conducted in sole reliance on an inaccurate report from other law enforcement personnel regarding the existence of an outstanding warrant. The clinic represents the petitioner. The case was argued on October 7, 2008.
  • Abbott v. Abbott, a case involving 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. The clinic represents the petitioner, a father seeking the return of his child to Chile. The Supreme Court will decide in first part of 2009 whether to accept review of the case.
  • Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service, a case involving the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the Forest Service's plan to allow a ski resort to spray recycled sewage water (in the form of artificial snow) on the most sacred mountain of southwest Native American tribes. The clinic represents the Navajo and several other tribes. The Supreme Court will decide in the first part of 2009 whether to accept review of the case.

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

(*denotes that clinic instructor argued case)

  1. *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.
  2. *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.
  3. *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.
  4. *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.
  5. 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.
  6. *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.
  7. *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.
  8. 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.
  9. *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.
  10. *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.
  11. *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.
  12. *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.
  13. *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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. *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.
  17. *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.
  18. *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.
  19. *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.
  20. 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.

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