In UCLA’s Supreme Court Clinic, students and faculty work together on real cases before the United States Supreme Court.
Here are some examples of our recent work.
March 2015: Clinic files reply brief in Sweeney v. United States.
March 2015: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Torres v. Holder, No. 14-1096, on whether for immigration purposes a state offense constitutes an aggravated felony on the ground that the state offense is “described in” a federal statute, where the federal statute includes an interstate commerce element that the state offense lacks.
December 2014: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Sweeney v. United States, No. 14-668, on whether a temporary deprivation of the right to counsel during trial is a structural error requiring reversal.
November 2014: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Manzano v. Indiana, No. 14-631, on whether a defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with a guilty plea must prove that he would have been acquitted had he gone to trial.
September 2014: Clinic files reply brief in Battles v. United States.
April 2014: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Battles v. United States, No. 13-1309, on whether a criminal defendant must file a second notice of appeal for the Court of Appeals to have jurisdiction to decide an issue also raised in a motion for a new trial.
April 2014: Clinic files brief in opposition to certiorari in Missouri v. McNeal, No. 13-963, on whether defense counsel can render ineffective assistance by failing to request a jury instruction on a lesser included offense.
March 2014: Clinic files reply brief in Hammond v. Kmart.
March 2014: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Salazar v. Missouri, on whether establishing a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial requires showing that a would-be spectator was excluded from the courtroom.
March 2014: Clinic files reply brief in Ferguson v. Steele.
March 2014: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Ferguson v. Steele, No. 13-1069, on whether a capital conviction is consistent with due process when it has been obtained with pseudoscientific “expert” testimony concerning microscopic hair comparison.
February 2014: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Hammond v. Kmart, No. 13-998, on whether 42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits race discrimination by a retail establishment during the course of an otherwise successfully-completedtransaction.
February 2014: Clinic files reply brief in Carrion v. Agfa Construction Co.
February 2014: Clinic files reply brief in Long v. United States.
December 2013: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Carrion v. Agfa Construction Co., No. 13-689, on whether the Davis-Bacon Act preempts a state common law claim for breach of contract.
November 2013: Clinic files amicus brief on behalf of child pornography victims in Paroline v. United States, No. 12-8561, showing that the Eighth Amendment does not limit the size of restitution awards.
October 2013: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Long v. United States, No. 13-552, on whether the parol evidence rule bars a court from enforcing oral promises made by the prosecutor during plea bargaining.
June 2013: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Dugan v. Montana, No. 13-13, on the constitutionality of a statute barring offensive speech over the telephone.
May 2013: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Roach v. Missouri, No. 12-1394, on whether the dual sovereignty doctrine is consistent with the original meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
March 2013: Clinic files petition for certiorari in Schmitz v. California, No. 12-1176, on whether the Fourth Amendment allows the police to conduct a warrantless, suspicionless search of an area shared by the defendant and a parolee.
March 2013: Clinic files amicus brief on behalf of 53 professors of Indian law in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (2013), showing how the historical background to the Indian Child Welfare Act makes clear that the Act may be invoked by non-custodial parents.
In several other cases, we have given advice to lawyers preparing merits briefs, petitions for certiorari, and briefs in opposition to petitions for certiorari.
Unlike similar clinics at other law schools, we do not insist on taking over an entire case. We’re happy to help any way we can. If you are an attorney who would like our assistance with any aspect of Supreme Court practice, please contact the clinic director, Professor Stuart Banner.