{"id":842,"date":"2017-07-10T11:46:41","date_gmt":"2017-07-10T15:46:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/clinics\/appellate-courts-immersion-clinic\/our-litigation\/"},"modified":"2026-04-06T16:55:20","modified_gmt":"2026-04-06T16:55:20","slug":"our-litigation-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/clinics\/our-clinics\/appellate-courts-immersion-clinic\/our-litigation-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Our Litigation"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"mainContent\">\n<div id=\"cs_control_1411\" class=\"CS_Element_Schedule\">\n<div id=\"CS_Element_mainContent\" title=\"\">\n<div id=\"cs_control_294239\" class=\"cs_control CS_Element_Textblock\">\n<div class=\"CS_Textblock_Text\">\n<p>The Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic handles complex public-interest appeals.\u00a0 The Clinic director \u2013 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/faculty\/wolfman-brian.cfm\">Brian Wolfman<\/a> \u2013 previously directed the Civil Rights clinic at Georgetown&#8217;s Institute for Public Representation (IPR), which did both trial-court and appellate litigation. In that capacity, he mentored teams of Georgetown Law students handling a range of complex public-interest appeals similar to those now being handled by the Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic. Therefore, below, we provide a list of some of our litigation followed by a partial list of IPR appeals.<\/p>\n<h2>Spring Semester 2026<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><i>Lewald v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections\u00a0<\/i>(3d Cir.) (pending) \u2500 whether our client\u2019s rights to reasonable accommodations under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disability Act were violated when a prison denied him work accommodations, seriously exacerbating his degenerative disc disease (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2026\/03\/34-Lewald-Opening-Brief.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Teamsters Local Union No. 107 v. Madison Concrete Construction\u00a0<\/em>(3d Cir.) (pending) \u2500 whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction from a district-court order refusing to vacate an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2026\/03\/52-ACIC-amicus-brief-3.16.2026.pdf\">court-appointed amicus brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Fall Semester 2025<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"m_458408908228901291MsoListParagraph\"><i>Hill v. Amentum Services, Inc.\u00a0<\/i>(9th Cir.) (pending) \u2500 whether an employer violates the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act when it<a name=\"m_458408908228901291__BA_Cite_C4A4C2_002170\"><\/a>\u00a0refuses to provide its employees who are union members with the same 90 days of differential pay for military leave that the employer provides to its non-union employees (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/12\/Hill-brief.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>March v. Town of Grand Chute\u00a0<\/em>(7th Cir.) (pending) \u2500 whether the First Amendment protected a town manager who cooperated with a state investigation into public corruption from a retaliatory firing by the Town and its board of supervisors (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/12\/24-March-opening-brief-12.5.2025.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2026\/03\/51-March-combined-reply-response-br-public-ver-3.9.2026.pdf\">combined reply-response brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC<\/em>,<em>\u00a0<\/em>No. 24-1238 (U.S. Supreme Court) \u2500 concerning whether a federal law deregulating the economics of the commercial-trucking industry preempts state-law suits against truck brokers whose negligence causes truck crashes (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/12\/Inst-for-Safer-Trucking-Montgomery-Merits-Stage-Amicus-Brief-12-2-25-final-for-filing.pdf\">merits-stage amicus brief<\/a>\u00a0for the Institute for Safer Trucking)<\/li>\n<li><em>Stark v. Lammer\u00a0<\/em>(7th Cir.) (pending) \u2500 concerning several important issues about how time credits are applied to reduce a federal prisoner\u2019s sentence under the First Step Act (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/12\/13-Stark-Opening-Brief-12.3.2025-2.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2026\/04\/28-Stark-Reply-public-version.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Bandary v. Delta Airlines\u00a0<\/em>(9th Cir.) (pending) \u2500 \u00a0in a case involving alleged egregious mistreatment of a disabled passenger by airline personnel, this brief addresses the circumstances under which airlines (1) are immune from suit under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act and (2) may be held liable for emotional-distress damages under the Montreal Convention (Clinic wrote<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/11\/23-Bandary-opening-brief-reduced.pdf\"> opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2026\/03\/47-Bandary-reply-brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li class=\"m_3955848384105805477MsoListParagraph\"><i>Bivens v. Zep, Inc.\u00a0<\/i>(6th Cir.) (pending) \u2500 concerning the standard for imposing liability under Title VII when an employee experiences sexual harassment at the hands of a non-employee (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/09\/37-en-banc-petition.pdf\">petition for rehearing en banc<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><i>[Doe] v. Bondi<\/i>\u00a0(XX Cir.) (pending) &#8211; whether our client gained derivative citizenship due to parent&#8217;s naturalization that took place while our client was still a minor. (Clinic wrote opening brief, but we cannot post the briefs here; the filings in the appeal are sealed because of the risk public disclosure would pose to our client.)<\/li>\n<li><em>Johnson v. Int\u2019l Longshoreman Ass\u2019n, Local 1414\u00a0<\/em>(11th Cir.) (pending) \u2500 concerning (1) the timeliness of our client\u2019s Title VII sexual-harassment claim under the continuing-violation doctrine, and (2) whether our client adequately pleaded her Title VII retaliation claim (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/11\/27-Johnsons-Opening-Brief-10.16.2025.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2026\/01\/32-Johnson-reply-brief-final-for-filing-1.20.2026-1.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Spring Semester 2025<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><i>Crawley v.<\/i> <em>Daniels<\/em>, 2026 WL 125194 (9th Cir. 2026)\u00a0 \u2500 concerning whether a prison\u2019s failure to provide our client access to evidence used against him at a prison disciplinary hearing violated his clearly established Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/07\/33-Crawley-Brief.pdf\">answering brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2026\/01\/51-Crawley-Supplemental-Brief.pdf\">supplemental brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>MacIntyre v. City of Palm<\/em> Bay, 2025 WL 3687685 (11th Cir. 2025) \u2500 concerning whether our client\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when police officers stopped him on the street while he was minding his own business, threw him violently to the ground, and then arrested and shackled him (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/05\/15-MacIntyres-Opening-Brief-5.12.2025.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/07\/22-MacIntyres-Reply-Brief-7.23.2025.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Miles v. Bowers\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0(1st Cir.) (pending) \u2500 concerning whether the Bureau of Prisons may deny a federal prisoner otherwise mandatory sentence credits under the First Step Act for a period in which he was incarcerated after sentencing but before his transfer to the federal prison where he is designated to serve the remainder of his sentence (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/05\/25.05.05-Miles-Opening-Brief.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/07\/Miles-Reply-Brief-7.23.2025.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Driscoll v. Montgomery County, Ohio\u00a0<\/em> (6th Cir.) (pending) \u2500 concerning whether the district court correctly determined that a police officer is not entitled to qualified immunity for shooting our client, an unarmed person experiencing a mental-health crisis (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/05\/2025.05.02-Driscoll-Appellee-Brief-2.pdf\">answering brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Childs v. Webster<\/em>, F.4th , 2026 WL 602165 (7th Cir. 2026) \u2500 concerning whether a prison violated the First Amendment and RLIUPA when it refused to provide our client schedules needed to conduct religiously mandated Muslim prayers (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/04\/26-Childs-Opening-Br.-final-for-filing-4.22.2025-public-version2.pdf\">opening brief<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/07\/41-Childss-reply-brief-public-version-7.11.2025.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Phath v. Central Transport North America<\/em>, 165 F.4th 780 (3d Cir. 2026)\u00a0 \u2500 concerning first-impression interpretation of Pennsylvania statute that restricts employers from making adverse hiring decisions based on job applicants\u2019 prior criminal convictions (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/03\/23-Phath-Opening-Brief-3.17.2025.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/05\/38-Phath-Reply-Brief-5.20.2025.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Gentles v. Borough of Pottstown (Pa.), <\/em>2025 WL 2082645 (3d Cir. 2025) \u2500 concerning whether police officers (1) violated the Fourth Amendment during a traffic stop triggered by \u201csuspicion\u201d that our client was up to no good when he drove by his own home; and (2) are liable for common-law malicious prosecution for charging our client with criminal disorderly conduct arising from the same incident (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/03\/51-Gentles-Opening-Brief.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/05\/70-Gentles-Reply-Brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools etc. <\/em>145 S. Ct. 1647 (2025)\u00a0\u2500 concerning standard for imposing liability in suits brought by schoolchildren alleging disability discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/03\/24-249-Brief-of-Amici-COPAA-and-Other-Orgs-1.pdf\">amicus brief<\/a>\u00a0on behalf Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates and eleven other disability-rights organizations)<\/li>\n<li><em>United States v. Norwood\u00a0<\/em>(3d Cir.) (pending) \u2500 concerning whether the U.S. Sentencing Commission is authorized to allow district courts to consider nonretroactive changes in sentencing law in determining whether \u201cextraordinary and compelling\u201d reasons exist to grant a prisoner compassionate release under the First Step Act (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/03\/26-Norwood-initial-petition-for-rhrg-en-banc-3.7.2025.pdf\">initial petition for hearing en banc<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Fall Semester 2024<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Hammock v. Watts,<\/em> 146 F. 4th 349 (4th Cir. 2025)\u00a0\u2500 concerning whether the district court erred in dismissing our client\u2019s claims that, for over two years, a prison (1) served contaminated and rodent-bitten food in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and (2) barred religiously mandated prayer in violation of the First Amendment (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/01\/45-Hammock-v.-Watt-opening-brief.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/04\/52.-Hammock-Reply-Brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/04\/68.-Joint-Supplemental-Brief.pdf\">supplemental brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Qashu v. Blinkin\u00a0<\/em>(D.C. Cir.) (pending) \u2500 concerning whether our client\u2019s claims against the State Department for disparate-treatment disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation should go to a jury (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2024\/12\/12.3.24-Qashu-Opening-Brief.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/05\/4.15.25-Qashu-Reply-Brief-2.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>McNeil v.<\/em> Gittere, 150 F. 4th 1205 (9th Cir. 2025) \u2500 concerning, on the merits, whether a prison\u2019s failure to provide our client access to evidence used against him at a prison disciplinary hearing violated his clearly established Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process; also presenting the question when the 30-day time limit begins to tick on an appeal from a collateral order (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2024\/12\/49.1-Answering-Brief.pdf\">answering brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Hollis v. Morgan State<\/em> University, 153 F. 4th 369 (4th Cir. 2025)\u00a0\u2500 concerning whether our client may maintain claims against a university under the Equal Pay Act, Title VII, and other statutes based on systemic gender discrimination in pay and promotion (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2024\/10\/hollis_opening_brief.pdf\">opening brief<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/03\/55-Reply-Brief-with-Correct-Entry-Name.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Spring Semester 2024<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Bell v. City of<\/em> Southfield, 2024 WL 3429178 (6th Cir. 2024) \u2500 concerning whether the police officer who allegedly used excessive force against our client in violation of the Fourth Amendment may immediately appeal the district court\u2019s determination that the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/24-Appellee-Bells-brief-5.21.2024-2.pdf\">answering brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Lucas v. VHC<\/em> Health, 128 F.4th 213 (4th Cir. 2025) \u2500 concerning whether and in what circumstances patients may sue under the Affordable Care Act for race discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/23-opening-brief.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2024\/08\/51-Lucass-reply-brief-8.14.2024.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Russell v. Comstock, <\/em>F.4th , 2026 WL 508483 (7th Cir. 2026) \u2500 concerning whether the warrantless search of our client\u2019s home was permissible under the Fourth Amendment (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/23-Russell-opening-brief-public-5.15.2024.pdf\">opening brief<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2024\/08\/Russell-Reply-Brief-final-for-filing-7.19.2024-corrected.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Dunne v. Ricolcol, <\/em>2024 WL 5088112 (9th Cir. 2024) \u2500 concerning, among other issues, our client\u2019s Administrative Procedure Act challenge to systematic non-compliance with mandatory federal Bureau of Prisons\u2019 regulations for handling prisoner grievances (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/42-Dunne-Replacement-Opening-Brief-3.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2024\/10\/dunne_replacement_reply_br_-_10.4.2024.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>M.K. v. Pearl River County School<\/em> District, 144 F.4th 801 (5th Cir. 2025)\u00a0 \u2500 concerning, among other issues, the circumstances under which homophobic grade-school bullying violates Title IX\u2019s prohibition on sex discrimination (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/28-M.K.-Opening-Appellate-Brief-4.15.2024.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2024\/09\/77-MK-Reply.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Fall Semester 2023<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Goode v. Cook<\/em>, 2025 WL 816302 (2d Cir. 2025) \u2500 concerning, among other issues, whether long-term solitary confinement violates the Eighth Amendment\u2019s prohibition on cruel-and-unusual punishment (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/40.-Appellant-Opening-Brief-1.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/68.-Reply-Brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Talley v. Pillai, <\/em>116 F.4th 200, (3d Cir. 2024) \u2500 concerning a range of unresolved issues under the \u201cthree-strikes\u201d provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/67-ACIC-Talley-amicus-12.16.2023.pdf\">opening brief<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/88-ACIC-reply-3.8.2024-accessible.pdf\">reply brief<\/a> as court-appointed amicus for the appellant)<\/li>\n<li><em>Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, <\/em>No. 23-475 (U.S. Supreme Court) \u2500 concerning whether federal law preempts state-law suits against truck brokers whose negligence causes calamitous truck crashes (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Ye-amicus-brief-for-Inst-Safer-Trucking-final-for-filing-12.4.2023.pdf\">amicus brief<\/a>\u00a0for the Institute for Safer Trucking)<\/li>\n<li><em>Nealy v. Shinn,<\/em> 2024 WL 3842094 (9th Cir. 2024) \u2500 concerning whether state officials\u2019 hostile interference with Muslim congregate prayer in a prison violates the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/21-Appellant-Nealys-opening-brief-10.6.2023.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/44-Appellant-Nealys-reply-brief-3.2.2024.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Spring Semester 2023<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Ferguson v. United States of America,<\/em> No. 22-1216 (U.S. Supreme Court) \u2500 concerning whether the federal habeas statute limits a district court\u2019s discretion to consider legal errors in prior proceedings as \u201cextraordinary and compelling reasons\u201d warranting a sentence reduction under the federal compassionate-release statute (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/Ferguson-petition-for-printer-5.24.23.pdf\">petition for certiorari<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Ferguson-reply-final-to-print.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Karas v. California Dep\u2019t of Corrections &amp; Rehabilitation,<\/em> 2023 WL 8889552 (9th Cir. 2023) \u2500 concerning whether California\u2019s scheme for providing good-time credits to inmates creates a Fourteenth Amendment \u201cliberty interest\u201d triggering procedural-due-process protections (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/34-Opening-Brief-1.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/57-Reply-brief-10.13.2023.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/58-Opp-to-judicial-notice-10.13.2023.pdf\">opposition to request for judicial notice<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Moore v. Walton,<\/em> 96 F.3d 616 (3d Cir. 2024) \u2500 concerning when a prisoner\u2019s exposure to human waste violates the Eighth Amendment\u2019s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and when the time for amendment and service of a complaint may be extended under federal civil rules 15(c) and 4(m) (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/89-Appellant-Opening-Brief.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/100-Appellant-Reply-Brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Talandar v. Vermont<\/em>, No. 21-1441 (2d Cir.)\u00a0 \u2500 concerning the interaction between the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and <em>Younger\u00a0<\/em>abstention (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/144-Re-paginated-Pet-for-rehearing-en-banc-3.1.2023.pdf\">petition for rehearing<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Fall Semester 2022<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Jackson v. Sheriff of Winnebago County,<\/em> 74 F. 4th 496 (7th Cir. 2023) \u2500 concerning whether a jail officer\u2019s delay in bringing emergency medical care to an inmate struggling to breathe violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law \u00a0(Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/18-Appellants-opening-brief-public-1.32023.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/35-Reply-brief-public-copy-5.5.2023.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Grace v. Bd. of Trustees, Brooke East Boston,<\/em> 85 F.4th 1\u00a0(1st Cir. 2023) \u00a0\u2500 concerning the circumstances under which homophobic and transphobic grade-school bullying violate Title IX\u2019s prohibition on sex discrimination in educational institutions and programs receiving federal financial assistance \u00a0(Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/23.01.13-Appellants-Brief-Filed.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/23.03.21-Appellants-Reply-Filed-1.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Santos v. Yellowfin Loan Servicing Corp., <\/em>No. 22-0910 (Tex. S. Ct.) \u2500 concerning whether a claim to collect a deficiency judgment on a second mortgage accrues when that judgment is entered or whenever in the future the lender (or its successor in interest) decides to \u201caccelerate\u201d the original mortgage loan (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/Santos-Petition_Final-with-stamp.pdf\">petition for review<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/4.11.23-Santos-petition-reply-stamped.pdf\">petition reply<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Santos-final-for-filing-file-stamped.pdf\">opening merits brief<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Santos-Reply-file-stamped.pdf\">reply merits brief<\/a> to the Texas Supreme Court)<\/li>\n<li><em>Daye v. Garland,<\/em> No. 22-356 (U.S. Supreme Court) \u2500 concerning whether the Supreme Court should overrule <i>Jordan v. De George<\/i> and hold that the phrase \u201ccrime involving moral turpitude\u201d as used in 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1227(a)(2)(A) is unconstitutionally vague (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Daye-Amicus-Brief-To-File-11.14.22-1214pm.pdf\">amicus brief<\/a> for former immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals officials)<\/li>\n<li><em>Sonmez v. WP Company,<\/em> (D.C. 2025)\u00a0 \u2500 concerning whether coverage ban and other employment decisions imposed on a journalist by Washington Post violates the D.C. Human Rights Act (Clinic wrote appellant\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/10-14-22-Sonmez-opening-brief-stamped.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/3.10.23-response-reply-brief.pdf\">cross-appeal response and reply brief<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/04\/4-1-2025-response-to-pet-for-rehearing-en-banc.pdf\">response to petition for rehearing en banc<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Naes v. City of St. Louis, Missouri<\/em>, 2024 WL 3443868 (8th\u00a0Cir. 2024) \u00a0\u2500 \u00a0concerning whether sex-based job transfers violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Clinic wrote appellant\u2019s\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Opening-brief-8.9.22.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/11.1.22-Naes-reply-brief-2.pdf\">reply brief,<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/7.28.2023-pet-for-rhrg-en-banc.pdf\">petition for rehearing en banc<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2024\/08\/Letter-1.pdf\">post-<em>Muldrow<\/em> letter #1<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2024\/08\/Letter-2.pdf\">post-<em>Muldrow<\/em> letter #2<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Spring Semester 2022<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Muldrow v. City of St. Louis,<\/em> 144 S. Ct. 967 (2024)\u00a0\u2500 Concerning whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discriminatory job transfers and refusals to transfer (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Muldrow-cert.-petition-okay-to-print-final-8.29.2022.pdf\">petition for certiorari<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/Muldrow-cert-reply-filed-12.20.22.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Petitioner-opening-merits-brief-8.28.2023.pdf\">opening merits brief<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Muldrow-reply-final-for-filing-11.9.2023-e-submission.pdf\">merits reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Stafford v. George Washington University,<\/em> 56 F.4th 50 (D.C. Cir. 2022)\u00a0\u2500 Title VI race-discrimination appeal involving allegations of egregious racially hostile environment on college tennis team; appeal poses questions about imputation of liability to the university and the appropriate statute of limitations (Clinic wrote appellant\u2019s\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/6.3.22-Stafford-Appellant-Opening-Brief-Public-Copy.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/08.23.22-Stafford-Reply-Brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Pyankovska v. Abid, <\/em>65 F.4th 1067 (9th Cir. 2023) \u2500 concerning the federal and Nevada Wiretap Acts, the Noerr-Pennington and other First Amendment doctrines, and Rule 55(b) default-judgment damages (Clinic wrote appellant\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/35-Pyankovska-Replacement-Opening-Brief-4.22.2022.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/59-Pyankovska-replacement-reply-brief-10.6.2022.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Robinson v. Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, <\/em>71 F.4th 51 (D.C. Cir. 2023) \u2500 concerning whether the time period for suing in district court on \u201cmixed\u201d Title VII\/Civil Service Reform Act claims is jurisdictional or, rather, a claim-processing rule subject to equitable exceptions) (Clinic wrote appellant\u2019s\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/5.6.2022-Pet-for-hearing-en-banc.pdf\">petition for initial hearing en banc<\/a>,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/10.13.2022-Robinson-Appellants-Opening-Brief.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/3.9.2023-Reply-Brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Moss v.<\/em> <em>Miniard<\/em>, 62 F.4th 1002 (6th Cir. 2023), <em>cert. denied<\/em>, 2024 WL 674729 (2024) \u2500 habeas appeal concerning whether our client\u2019s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated (Clinic wrote appellee\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/Dkt-29-Corrected-Response-Brief-1.pdf\">response brief<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/Dkt-48-Petition-for-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf\">petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc,<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/Moss-petiton-final-for-filing-10.25.2023.pdf\">petition for certiorari<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Moss-cert-reply-final-for-filing-1.30.2024.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Fall Semester 2021<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Burrell v. Staff, <\/em>60 F.4th 25 (3d Cir. 2023)\u00a0\u2500 concerning a range of issues under the Thirteenth Amendment, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, RICO, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and state law in a challenge to an alleged scheme by government and private actors to jail and then profit from the labor of child-support debtors (Clinic wrote appellants\u2019\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Burrell-Opening-Brief.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2024\/09\/67-Reply-Brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools<\/em><em>, <\/em>143 S. Ct. 859 (2023)\u00a0\u2500 concerning whether and to what degree a student must exhaust administrative remedies under the federal special-education law before filing an education-related suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Clinic wrote certiorari-stage\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Weber-Perlmutter-Amicus-1.4.2022-okay-to-print.pdf\">amicus brief<\/a> for law professors in the field)<\/li>\n<li><em>Davis v. Legal Services of Alabama\u00a0<\/em>(11th Cir. and U.S. Supreme Court) (<em>pending<\/em>) \u2500 concerning what discriminatory acts are covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964\u2019s prohibition on discrimination in the \u201cterms, conditions, or privileges of employment\u201d \u00a0(Clinic wrote appellant\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Petition-for-rehearing-en-banc.pdf\">petition for rehearing en banc<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Davis-Petition-To-File.pdf\">petition for certiorari<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/Davis-Reply-filed-12.20.2022.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Davis-Supp-Cert-Brief-filed-6.5.2023.pdf\">supplemental brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Harrison v. Brookhaven School District, <\/em>82 F.4th 427 (5th Cir. 2023)\u00a0\u2500 concerning whether an employer\u2019s discriminatory refusal to reimburse an employee for training is a so-called \u201cadverse employment action\u201d and therefore violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Clinic wrote appellant&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/Harrison-Appellants-brief-12.8.2021.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/Harrison-Reply-Brief-2.8.2022.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Creech v. Ohio Dep\u2019t of Rehabilitation and Correction,<\/em> 2022 WL 4480124\u00a0(6th Cir. 2022)\u00a0\u2500 concerning whether a prison\u2019s confiscation of a cane from a prisoner with serious ambulatory disabilities violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and whether Congress appropriately abrogated the state\u2019s immunity to suits of this kind under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment (Clinic wrote appellant\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/Dkt-20-Corrected-Opening-Brief.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Dkt-30-Reply-Brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Wallace v. Performance<\/em> Contractors, 57 F.4th 209 (5th Cir. 2023)\u00a0\u2500 concerning sex-based job discrimination, serious and pervasive harassment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Clinic wrote appellant\u2019s\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/2021.10.29-Wallace-Appellants-Brief.pdf\">opening brief<\/a> and, with our friends at the Hecker Kaplan law firm taking the laboring oar, appellant\u2019s\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/2022.02.02-Wallace-reply-brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>A.P. v. Fayette County Sch. Dist.,<\/em> 2023 WL 4174070 (11th Cir. 2023)\u00a0\u2500 concerning when on-campus sexual assault and a school\u2019s failure to respond violates Title\u2019s IX\u2019s prohibitions on discrimination and retaliation and the Equal Protection Clause (Clinic wrote appellant\u2019s\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/A.P.-Opening-Brief.pdf\">opening brief <\/a>and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/A.P.-Reply-Brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Johnson v. Ryan,<\/em> 55 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022) \u2500 concerning whether the Arizona prison system\u2019s program for release from solitary confinement violates due process and related issues (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/Dkt-30-Supplemental-Opening-Brief-10.19.2021.pdfhttps:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/Dkt-30-Supplemental-Opening-Brief-10.19.2021.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/47-Supplemental-Reply-Brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Spring Semester 2021<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Chambers v. District of<\/em> <em>Columbia<\/em>, 35 F.4th 870 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (en banc) \u00a0\u2500 concerning whether the en banc D.C. Circuit should overturn circuit precedent and hold that a discriminatory transfer of an employee (or a discriminatory refusal to transfer an employee) violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Clinic wrote appellant\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/Opening-En-Banc-Br.pdf\">opening en banc brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/en-banc-reply.pdf\">reply en banc brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>United States v. Jones\u00a0<\/em><em>(5th Cir.) (pending)<\/em>\u00a0\u2500 concerning whether a generic appeal waiver in a plea agreement bars a challenge to a conviction under an invalid, unconstitutional statute (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/5.12.21-Opening-Brief.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/8.24.21-Reply-Brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/07\/157-Joness-Pet-RHrg-En-Banc-7.7.2025.pdf\">petition for rehearing en banc<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2025\/12\/Jones-Cert-Pet-final-for-filing-10.27.2025.pdf\">petition for certiorari<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Cole v. Wake County Board of Education<\/em>,<em> No. 20-1364 (U.S. Supreme Court)<\/em>\u00a0\u2500 concerning whether the Supreme Court should overturn the adverse-employment-action doctrine, which significantly narrows Congress\u2019s ban on employment discrimination (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/Cole-Petition-3.29.2021-final-to-printer.pdf\">petition for certioriari<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/Cole-cert-reply-final-okay-to-print-5.14.2021.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Garrett v. Murphy, 17 F.4th 419\u00a0(3rd Cir. 2021)<\/em>\u00a0\u2500 concerning a range of issues under the Prison Litigation Reform Act\u2019s \u201cthree strikes\u201d provision (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/58-Opening-Amicus-Brief.pdf\">opening brief <\/a>and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/80-ACIC-reply-brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Hamilton v. Dallas County Sheriff\u2019s Department,<\/em> 79 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2023) (en banc) \u2500 concerning whether the Fifth Circuit should overturn the adverse-employment-action doctrine, which significantly narrows Congress\u2019s ban on employment discrimination (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Petition-for-hearing-en-banc.pdf\">initial petition for hearing en banc<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/Opening-brief.pdf\">opening panel brief<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/Reply-brief.pdf\">reply panel brief<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Petition-for-rehearing-en-banc-8.16.2022.pdf\">petition for rehearing en banc<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/11.14.22-Appellants-Supplemental-En-Banc-Brief.pdf\">merits en banc brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Famous v. Fuchs, 38 F.4th 625 <\/em>(7th Cir. 2022) \u2500 habeas petition raising ineffective assistance of counsel and statute-of-limitations issues and the circumstances under which a habeas petitioner has a right to a federal-court evidentiary hearing (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Dkt-19-Public-Opening-Brief.pdf\">opening brief<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/Dkt-36-Reply-Brief-Public.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Townsend v. United<\/em> States, 2022 WL 4769075 (D.C. Cir. 2022) \u2500 concerning whether the D.C. Circuit should overturn the adverse-employment-action doctrine, which significantly narrows Congress\u2019s ban on employment discrimination (Clinic wrote<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/Petition-for-initial-hearing-en-banc-1.27.2021.pdf\">\u00a0initial petition for hearing en banc<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Board of Comm., Weld County, Colo. v. Exby-Stolley,<\/em>\u00a0No. 20-1357 (U.S. Supreme Court) \u2500 regarding whether the Supreme Court should review the Tenth Circuit\u2019s en banc decision concerning the breadth of an employer\u2019s \u201creasonable accommodation\u201d duty under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Clinic students researched and drafted this\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Exby-Stolley-opposition-5.26.2021-ready-to-print.pdf\">opposition to certiorari<\/a>\u00a0in collaboration with Jason Wesoky of the Denver, Colorado law firm Darling Milligan, PC)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Fall Semester 2020<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Collier v. Dallas County Hospital\u00a0<\/em><em>District, <\/em>No. 20-1004 (U.S. Supreme Court) \u2500 whether and in what circumstances workplace use of the n-word or similar odious racist epithets creates a hostile work environment and, therefore, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Clinic wrote Supreme Court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/Collier-Petition-ready-to-print-1.15.2021.pdf\">petition for certiorari <\/a>and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Collier-cert-reply-ready-to-print-4.23.2021.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Threat, et al. v. City of Cleveland<\/em>, 6 F.4th 672 (6th Cir. 2021) \u2500 concerning whether the City of Cleveland\u2019s race-based system for assigning EMS supervisors violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related issues (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/Opening-Brief.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/35-Reply-brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Sartori v. Schrodt,<\/em> 2021 WL 6060975 (11th Cir. 2021) \u2500 concerning the circumstances under which a person is authorized to access online electronic messages under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Stored Communications Act and related issues (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/12.14.2020-Appellee-Schrodts-Brief.pdf\">appellee\u2019s principal brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Castaneda Medina v. Garland<\/em>, 849 Fed. App\u2019x 674 (9th Cir. 2021) \u2500 \u00a0concerning the proper venue for an asylee to challenge a removal order entered in absentia (Clinic wrote opening and reply briefs) (These briefs are non-public filings and cannot be posted here.)<\/li>\n<li><em>Ziccarelli v. Dart, <\/em>35 F.3d 1079 (7th Cir. 2022) \u2500 raising a range of important issues under the Family and Medical Leave Act (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/26-Ziccarelli-Opening-Brief-public-filing-10.16.20201.pdf\">opening brief<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/39-Ziccarelli-reply-brief-public-2.4.2021.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Spring Semester 2020<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Kelly v. City of Alexandria, et al. (Kelly I)<\/em>, 830 F. App&#8217;x 722 (4th Cir. 2020) \u2500 whether employment-discrimination claims against a city and its officers are (1) valid under applicable federal civil-rights law (Section 1983), and (2) whether the filing period for certain Title VII claims may be equitably tolled (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/18-Kelly-Opening-Br.-6.14.2020.pdf\">opening brief<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/reply-brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>C.W. v. Denver County School District<\/em>, 994 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2021) <em>\u2500 <\/em>concerning what exhaustion of administrative remedies entails under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in the aftermath of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in <em>Fry v. Napoleon Public Schools<\/em> (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/opening-brief.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/CW-Reply-Response-Br-10.15.2020.pdf\">reply-response cross-appeal brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Rad v. Attorney General of the U.S.<\/em>, 983 F.3d 651 (3rd Cir. 2020) <em>\u2500 <\/em>whether, under both the \u201ccategorical approach\u201d and the \u201ccircumstance-specific approach,\u201d a legal permanent resident may be removed to his country of citizenship on the ground that he committed an \u201caggravated felony\u201d under federal law (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/65-ACIC-Amicus-Br.-4.22.2020.pdf\">opening brief<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/73-ACIC-reply-brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>) (Watch Immersion Clinic Clinical Fellow Hannah Mullen\u2019s oral argument before the Third Circuit)<\/li>\n<li><em><i>Kelly v. City of Alexandria, et al. (Kelly<\/i><\/em> II), 830 F. App&#8217;x 722 (4th Cir. 2020)<em>\u00a0\u2500 <\/em>whether employment-discrimination claims against city officers are (1) valid under applicable federal civil-rights law (Section 1983) or (2) precluded by prior litigation (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/24-Kelly-opening-brief-2.27.2020.pdf\">opening brief<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/reply-brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Thomas v. Baca, et al., <\/em>827 F. App\u2019x 777 (9th Cir. 2020)\u00a0<em>\u2500\u00a0<\/em>whether (1) the court of appeals has jurisdiction to hear this qualified-immunity appeal, and\/or (2) our client has a right to religious meals under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/34-Thomas-Answering-Brief-1.pdf\">answering brief for the appellee<\/a>) (Watch Immersion Clinic Fellow Madeline Meth\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ca9.uscourts.gov\/media\/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000018096\">oral argument<\/a> before the Ninth Circuit)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Fall Semester 2019<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Real v. Perry<\/em>, 810 F. App\u2019x 776 (11th Cir. 2020) \u2500 whether police officer\u2019s brandishing of gun in face of unarmed citizen with threat to shoot, accompanied by use of virulent racial slur, violates Fourth Amendment\u2019s ban on unreasonable seizures or the Due Process Clause (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/02\/Appellant-Reals-Opening-Br.-2.14.2020.pdf\">opening brief<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/Appellant-Reals-Reply-Br.-4.2.2020.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Ledford v. Baenen<\/em>, No. 19-1694\u00a0(7th Cir.) \u2500 whether toxic emissions and frigid temperatures in prison cell block violates the Eighth Amendment&#8217;s ban on cruel and unusual punishments (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/37-Ledford-opening-brief-ACCEPTED.pdf\">opening brief <\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Creese v. City of New York<\/em>, 815 F. App\u2019x 586 (2d Cir. 2020) \u2500 concerning the constitutional standards for imposing liability on police officers for false arrest and malicious prosecution (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/51-Appellants-Creeses-Brief-10.21.2019-2.pdf\">opening brief<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/02\/84-Appellants-Creeses-Reply-Brief-2.24.2020-1.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>) (Listen to Immersion Clinic student Kalen Pruss\u2019s present\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/georgetown.box.com\/s\/ibfx7z8gxhgjcfidpcp213lzmgagxiur\">oral argument<\/a>\u00a0before the Second Circuit)<\/li>\n<li><em>United States v. Dorsey,<\/em> No. 19-30001 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2019) \u2500 concerning the First Amendment right of access to court documents in criminal cases (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/16-AJ-Opening-Brief.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Spring Semester 2019<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Peterson v. Linear Controls\u00a0<\/em><i>Incorporated<\/i>,\u00a0No. 18-1401 (U.S. Supreme Court) \u2500 whether employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is limited to only &#8220;ultimate&#8221; actions, such as demotion and firing, or rather covers all discriminatory conduct by employers (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/06.06.2019-Peterson-Wolfman.Francois.Schnapper-Amicus-Brief-Final.pdf\">cert-stage amicus brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Molina-Aranda v. Black Magic Enterprises<\/em>, 983 F.3d 779 (5th Cir. 2020) \u2500 concerning standards for pleading federal wage-and-hour and RICO claims on behalf of foreign guest workers under federal H-2B program (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/Opening-CA5-Brief-ECF-filed-8.31.2019.pdf\">opening brief<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/Reply-CA5-Brief-ECF-filed-6.3.2020-final-approved-ECF-1.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><i>Taylor v. J.P. Morgan Chase<\/i> <em>Bank<\/em>, 958 F.3d 556\u00a0(7th Cir. 2020) \u2500 concerning banks&#8217; obligations to modify distressed mortgages under state law and the federal HAMP program enacted by Congress in response to the Great Recession (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/27-Anthony-Taylor-Opening-Brief-1.pdf\">opening brief<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/38-Taylor-Reply-Brief-1.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>[Doe] v. William Barr, U.S. Attorney General<\/em> (XX Cir.) \u2500 whether our client, an undocumented immigrant, is entitled to deferral of removal from the United States under the Convention Against Torture because she is likely to face torture in her home country (Clinic wrote <strong>opening<\/strong> and <strong>reply<\/strong> briefs, but we cannot post the briefs here; the filings in the appeal are sealed because of the risk public disclosure would pose to our client.)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Fall Semester 2018<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><i>Graviss v. Department of Defense<\/i>, No. 18-1061 (U.S. Supreme Court) \u2500 whether violation of the time limit for taking an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is an absolute jurisdictional bar to the suit or, rather, is a \u201cclaim-processing\u201d rule subject to exceptions (Clinic wrote Supreme Court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/Graviss-Cert-Petition-for-filing.pdf\">petition for certiorari<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/Graviss-Cert-Reply-okay-to-print-filed-4.30.2019.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Ritter v. Brady, Chapter 7 Trustee<\/em>, No. 18-747 (U.S. Supreme Court) \u2500 whether an underwater mortgage lien may be stripped down\/off in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy\u2014that is, whether <i>Dewsnup v. Timm<\/i>, 502 U.S. 410 (1992), should be overruled (Clinic wrote Supreme Court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/Ritter-cert-petition-FINAL.pdf\">petition for certiorari <\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Burningham v. Raines,<\/em> No. 18-747 (U.S. Supreme Court) \u2500 regarding whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to consider whether police officers who shot our client were entitled to qualified immunity (Clinic students researched and drafted <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/Raines-Opp.-11.13.2018.pdf\">opposition to certiorari<\/a> in collaboration with Arkansas law firm James &amp; Carter)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Spring Semester 2018<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Golden v. Indianapolis Housing Agency<\/em>, No. 17-1113\u00a0(U.S. Supreme Court) \u2500 whether cancer patients and others who need multi-month leave to treat their disabilities are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Golden-v.-Indianapolis-Housing-Agency.pdf\"> cert-stage amicus brief<\/a> for national cancer survivors\u2019 organizations)<\/li>\n<li><em>United States v. Mitchell,\u00a0<\/em>905 F.3d 991 (6th Cir. 2018) \u2500 whether our client&#8217;s sentence (1) was unlawfully lengthened under the Armed Career Criminal Act and (2) contained an unlawful supervised release term (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Mitchell-v.-USA-opening.pdf\">answering brief<\/a> as appellee and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Mitchell-v.-USA-reply.pdf\">reply brief\u00a0<\/a>as cross-appellant)<\/li>\n<li><em>Cirocco v. McMahon<\/em><em>,<\/em> 768 F. App&#8217;x 854 (10th Cir. 2019) \u2500 whether administrative exhaustion under Title VII, the federal law prohibiting employment discrimination, is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit and other key issues concerning the hostile-work-environment doctrine (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Cirocco-v.-McMahon-opening.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/11\/Appellants-Reply-Brief.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation,<\/em> 777 F. App&#8217;x 221 (9th Cir. 2019)\u00a0\u2500 whether a nationwide class-action settlement that treats groups of class members with claims of greatly different value identically is authorized by federal class-action law (Clinic students researched and drafted <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/In-Re-Lithium-Ion-Batteries-Antitrust-Litigation-opening.pdf\">opening brief<\/a> for objector Center for Class Action Fairness)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Fall Semester 2017<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Alvarez v. City of Brownsville<\/em>, 904 F.3d 382\u00a0(5th Cir. 2019) (en banc) \u2500 whether the government must disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant before entering a plea agreement under the principles of <em>Brady v. Maryland<\/em> (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Alvarez-v.-Brownsville.pdf\">en banc brief<\/a>\u00a0on behalf of wrongly-convicted, actually-innocent defendant)<\/li>\n<li><em>Jones v. Medtronic<\/em>, 745 F. App&#8217;x 714 (9th Cir. 2018) \u2500 whether federal medical-device law preempts state-law damages claims caused by certain defective medical devices (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Jones-v.-Medtronic-opening.pdf\">opening<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Jones-v.-Medtronic-reply.pdf\">reply<\/a>\u00a0briefs)<\/li>\n<li><em>Haywood v. Massage Envy<\/em>, 887 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2018) \u2500 concerning the breadth of the consumer-protection statutes of Missouri and Illinois (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Haywood-v.-Massage-Envy-opening.pdf\">opening<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Haywood-v.-Massage-Envy-reply.pdf\">reply<\/a>\u00a0briefs)<\/li>\n<li><em>Montgomery Country, Maryland v. Complete Lawn Care, Inc.,<\/em> 207 A. 3d 365 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.), cert denied, 212 A. 2d 395 (2019) \u2500 whether state pesticide law bars counties from adopting environmental-protection ordinances restricting pesticides in places likely to be used by children (Clinic students researched and drafted <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Montegomewry-County-MD-v.-Complete-Lawn-Care.pdf\">opening brief<\/a>\u00a0for the county)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Spring Semester 2017<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton<\/em>, 137 S. Ct. 1652 (2017) \u2500 whether ERISA plans maintained, but not established, by certain church affiliates are &#8220;church plans&#8221; and thus exempt from ERISA&#8217;s protections for retirees (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Advocate-Health-Care-Network-v.-Stapleton.pdf\">merits-stage amicus brief<\/a>\u00a0on behalf of the National Employment Lawyers Association)<\/li>\n<li><em>Balbed v. Eden Park Guest House,<\/em>\u00a0881 F.3d 285 (4th Cir. 2018) \u2500 concerning the circumstances under which employees who live and work on employers&#8217; premises must be paid minimum wage and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage-and-hour laws (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Balbed-v.-Eden-Park-Guest-House.pdf\">opening<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/Balbed-reply-brief-ECF-as-filed-7.10.2017-1.pdf\">reply<\/a>\u00a0briefs)<\/li>\n<li><em>Lyons v. The Johns Hopkins Hospital, <\/em>712 F. Appx. 287 (4th Cir. 2018) \u2500 concerning the scope of the exemption from coverage under the Americans with Disabilities Act for employees who have used illegal drugs (Clinic wrote <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Lyons-v.-The-Johns-Hopkins-Hospital.pdf\">opening<\/a>\u00a0and reply briefs)<\/li>\n<li><em>M.R. v. Ridley School District<\/em> 868 F.3d 218\u00a0(3rd Cir. 2017) \u2500 whether and under what circumstances the parents of a child with a disability are entitled to an award of attorney fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/M.R.-v.-Ridley-School-District.pdf\">reply brief<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><em>Oppositions to certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court<\/em> \u2500 (1) Clinic students worked with Georgetown law professor Gary Peller drafting an\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/opposition-to-certiorari-addressing-complex-issues-of-bankruptcy-law-and-due-process.pdf\">opposition to certiorari addressing complex issues of bankruptcy law and due process<\/a> arising out of General Motors&#8217; &#8220;Great Recession&#8221; bankruptcy; and (2) Clinic students researched and drafted an <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/opposition-to-certiorari-in-a-Class-Action-Fairness-Act-case.pdf\">opposition to certiorari in a Class Action Fairness Act case<\/a> arising out of the Flint water crisis in collaboration with McAlpine P.C.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Illustrative Cases from the Institute for Public Representation<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Elgin v. Department of Treasury<\/em>, 561 U.S. 1 (2012) \u2500 whether the Civil Service Reform Act precludes a federal district court from granting a federal employee equitable relief on a constitutional claim against that employee&#8217;s federal employer (Clinic handled both\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Elgin-v.-Department-of-Treasury-cert.pdf\">cert<\/a> and\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Elgin-v.-Department-of-Treasury-merits.pdf\">merits<\/a> stages)<\/li>\n<li><em>U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen<\/em>, 569 U.S. 88 (2013) \u2500 whether ERISA contract abrogates equitable common-fund doctrine (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/U.S.-Airways-Inc.-v.-McCutchen.pdf\">brief<\/a> for consumer-group amicus)<\/li>\n<li><em>Knight v. Thompson<\/em>, No. 13-955 (U.S. Supreme Court) \u2500 whether prisoners have a right under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act to resist state prison&#8217;s restrictive hair-grooming rules (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Knight-v.-Thompson.pdf\">cert-stage amicus brief<\/a> for national anti-discrimination and religious-liberty organizations)<\/li>\n<li><em>Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp<\/em>., 750 F.3d 413 (4th Cir. 2014) \u2500 concerning the standard for imputation of liability to employer based on third-party sexual and racial harassment under Title VII (Clinic wrote\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Freeman-v.-Dal-Tile-Corp..pdf\">appellate briefs<\/a> and then mediated settlement)<\/li>\n<li><em>McBurney v. Cuccinelli<\/em>, 616 F.3d 393 (4th Cir. 2010) \u2500 whether plaintiffs had Article III standing to bring constitutional challenge to Virginia law limiting use of Virginia&#8217;s FOIA to Virginia citizens (Clinic handled\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/McBurney-v.-Cuccinelli.pdf\">this appeal<\/a> as well as the trial litigation)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic handles complex public-interest appeals.\u00a0 The Clinic director \u2013 Brian Wolfman \u2013 previously directed the Civil Rights clinic at Georgetown&#8217;s Institute for Public Representation (IPR), which [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"parent":779,"menu_order":102,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-842","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/842","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=842"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/842\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29827,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/842\/revisions\/29827"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/779"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/experiential-learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=842"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}