Table of Contents

Program Highlights Who the Clinic Represents Clinic Staff Highlights Graduate Teaching Fellowship in the Appellate Litigation Clinic

Program Highlights

     The Appellate Litigation Program has been one of the core clinical programs at Georgetown University Law Center for over twenty years. For the past fifteen years, the program has been directed by Professor Steven H. Goldblatt. It is, in a real sense, a small appellate litigation law firm with one senior partner (Goldblatt), two junior partners (highly qualified attorneys in a two-year fellowship program), sixteen associates (third-year law students enrolled in a year-long, nine-credit clinic), and an office manager. The clinic caseload, both civil and criminal, includes cases involving federal agencies and exposes students to litigation in at least two federal circuits and the D.C. courts. The clinic has had four cases reach the United States Supreme Court on grants of writs of certiorari. Over twenty students working on those cases had the opportunity to participate in litigation before the highest court in the United States before they were even admitted to the bar.

    The program provides intense training in the art of oral and written advocacy as it is practiced in some of the highest courts in the nation, at a level appropriate to those courts and the issues presented. The clinic strives to provide the best representation possible, comparable to that provided by the best appellate firms in the country. What the students lack in experience is offset by their enthusiasm and willingness to put time into research, writing, and preparation that would be impossible elsewhere. In return, students learn not only how to litigate on appeal but how to litigate well, adopting professional standards that will guide them throughout their legal careers.

Who the Clinic Represents

The clinic accepts cases primarily by court appointment. The only cases the clinic accepts from any other source are amicus cases.

Clinic Staff

Professor Steven H. Goldblatt, Director
B.A., Franklin & Marshall; J.D., Georgetown

After graduating from the Law Center in 1970, Professor Goldblatt was an Assistant District Attorney and then a Deputy District Attorney of Philadelphia. He has been chair of the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section Amicus Curiae Briefs Committee (1982-1999). In 1985, he was a member of the ABA committee that issued the report, "Appellate Litigation Skills Training: The Role of the Law Schools." He served as reporter to the ABA Criminal Justice Section's Special Committee on Criminal Justice in a Free Society. That committee's report, Criminal Justice in Crisis, was published in 1988. In 1992, he was the reporter to the ABA Task Force on Minorities in the Justice System. Its July 1992 report was adopted by the ABA. He has argued four cases in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Appellate Litigation Clinic clients, and now serves as the faculty co-director of the Supreme Court Institute. He currently serves as the Chairperson of the Rules Advisory Committee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and has served on the ABA Criminal Justice Standards Committee.

Selected Publications

Adjunct Professor Roy T. Englert, Jr.
B.A., Princeton; J.D., Harvard

Professor Englert began working with the clinic ten years ago on SEC v. Zandford, 122 S. Ct. 1899 (2002). The next year he was appointed as an adjunct professor and consults with clinic students on cases, participating in seminar instruction, and providing career counseling. He is the founding partner of Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner LLP. Professor Englert was formerly a partner at Mayer, Brown & Platt in Washington, D.C., an Assistant to the Solicitor General at the United States Department of Justice, and an associate at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering in Washington, D.C. He was also a Court Law Clerk for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Throughout his career, Professor Englert's principal focus has been appellate litigation and antitrust law. His appellate experience includes arguing 12 cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, winning 10, losing 1, and achieving a split decision in 1. He has also briefed many other Supreme Court cases, and briefed and argued many cases in other state and federal appellate courts. His appellate cases have spanned virtually all fields of law, including antitrust, bankruptcy, employment discrimination, federal jurisdiction, administrative law, RICO, and punitive damages. Professor Englert's antitrust experience includes representing clients at trial and on appeal, negotiating with federal antitrust agencies, and providing antitrust counseling. He has also worked on competition issues in large railroad mergers before the Surface Transportation Board and its predecessor. His professional affiliations include membership in the ABA Section of Antitrust Law, the Supreme Court Historical Society, the Outside Advisory Board of the Georgetown Supreme Court Institute, and the Constitutional & Administrative Law Advisory Committee of the National Chamber Litigation Center.
Publications Anticompetitive Mergers: Prevention and Cure (co-author), in Antitrust and Regulation (F. Fisher ed. 1985); So Many Cases, So Little Time (co-author), in Legal Times of Washington, July 23, 1990 (annual Supreme Court Review), at S23; International Commerce Issues, in Financial Times Business Law Brief, July 1992, at 16; Punitive Damages to Be Reviewed (co-author), in Financial Times Business Law Brief, February 1993, at 13; Antitrust: A Change in Direction, in Legal Times of Washington, July 26, 1993 (annual Supreme Court Review), at S40; How to Write a Good Appellate Brief (co-author), in Litigation, Winter 1994, at 6; No Right to Vacate Judgments in Settled Cases - Says U.S. Supreme Court, in Civil Litigation Report, Jan. 15, 1995, at 5; A Favorable Term (co-author), in National Law Journal, August 6, 2001 (annual Supreme Court review), at C8; Some Important Wins (co-author), in National Law Journal, August 5, 2002 (annual Supreme Court review), at C5.

Case Highlights

Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277 (1992) (Considering in habeas corpus case the question whether the de novo review standard for mixed questions of law and fact established in 1953 [the Brown v. Allen standard] should be overruled).

Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (1992) (Reversing a Fourth Circuit determination that the court did not have jurisdiction over an appeal because the defendant's pro se brief could not serve as a timely notice of appeal).

Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129 (1991) (Holding by a 5-4 vote in one of the first federal sentencing guidelines cases reviewed by the Court that defendant must get notice if the court is considering a sua sponte departure from the guideline sentencing range).

Peralta v. United States Attorney's Office, 136 F.3d 169 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (Reversing district court order dismissing Executive Office for United States Attorneys as respondent in a FOIA case and referring complaint to FBI for processing. The Court noted that the tangled record led to the appointment of "Georgetown's able Appellate Litigation Program" as amicus to help sort out the confusion, and to make sense of the jurisdictional issues raised by this case).

Anyanwutaku v. Moore, 151 F.3d 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (Reversing, in part, and remanding civil rights complaint for further consideration of one of appellant's constitutional claims after rejecting appellee's claim that challenges that may affect parole eligibility must be brought as habeas corpus actions).

Bazuaye v. United States, 83 F.3d 482 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Reversing district court and holding that Bazuaye may sue the United States for improperly seizing money and holding that FTCA 2680(c) exception does not apply to law enforcement officials unless they are acting in a customs or excise capacity).

Nasim v. Warden, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1273 (1996) (Upholding the authority of district court to dismiss civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) on the basis that the action is barred by an affirmative defense).

Goldsmith v. Witkowski, 981 F.2d 697 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 3020 (1993) (Successful Jackson v. Virginia challenge on petition for writ of habeas corpus to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the defendant's South Carolina drug offense convictions).

Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 353 F.3d 1024 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Holding that victims of international terrorism may not sue foreign state-sponsors of terrorism under the Flatow Amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and noting that "the advocates from the Appellate Litigation Program responded admirably on very short notice in assisting the court with an outstanding brief and oral argument.")

Bettis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 315 F.3d 325 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (Affirming a judgment that neices and nephews of a victim of terrorist acts could not sue for international infliction of emotional distress, and noting that the Court's appreciation for the Appellate Litigation Program's "truly outstanding" brief and oral argument.)

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004) (Granting a certificate of appealability to Ms. Reid after deciding that a certificate of appealability is necessary to appeal a denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion.

Appellate Litigation Fellowships

The Appellate Litigation Program offers two graduate fellowships for LL.M. candidates interested in training as appellate advocates in the federal and D.C. courts. In addition to arguing at least two cases in the federal courts of appeals, the fellows work with students on cases pending in the D.C. courts, the federal courts of appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.  The fellows supervise student written work and oral advocacy preparation in order to enhance the student learning process and to develop the fellows' own skills as clinicians and litigators.

Fellows also participate in the Appellate Litigation Program's weekly seminar.  The fellows and the director jointly teach the seminar, exploring many aspects of appellate procedure and professional responsibility.

The fellowship provides an opportunity to prepare the candidate for a career in teaching, litigation, or both.  The emphasis of the program is determined by the fellow and the director.

There are two Appellate Litigation Fellowships, with one starting each year. The next fellowship that will become available is set to begin in the summer of 2012. We will accept applications for the next available fellowship between September 1 and December 1, 2011.

There is no formal application for the fellowship.  Rather, interested persons should apply by writing to Professor Steven H. Goldblatt, Director, Appellate Litigation Program, Georgetown University Law Center, 111 F Street, NW, Room 306, Washington, DC 20001-2095. Applicants should submit a cover letter, resume, writing sample, and official law school transcript. The application process has become increasingly competitive.  Fellows who are not members of the D.C. Bar must apply for admission no later than 90 days after the commencement of the fellowship.  Candidates should have at least one year of relevant experience beyond the J.D. degree (e.g., clerkship, government or private practice) and membership in a state bar.  Superior writing skills and a strong academic background are required.  A federal clerkship, appellate litigation experience, teaching experience, and experience with criminal or civil rights litigation are highly desirable.

 

Revised November 1, 2011 (LdL)