Supreme Court

Northwestern Supreme Court Clinic

Sidley’s partnership with Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law gives students the opportunity to work on cases pending before the Supreme Court. Third-year law students are supervised by Sidley lawyers in researching and drafting briefs in cases at the petition stage and on the merits. The students also monitor lower court decisions to identify potential candidates for petitions for writs of certiorari. Sidley partners Carter Phillips and Jeffrey Green serve as the Northwestern Supreme Court Clinic’s directors, along with Northwestern faculty member Sarah O. Schrup.

In 2020, the Clinic filed 9 petitions for a writ of certiorari, 9 reply briefs, 2 briefs in opposition, and 3 briefs as amicus curiae. Students also contributed to briefing on the merits, including 3 briefs for petitioner, 3 reply briefs, and 1 brief for respondent.

A Landmark Decision on Behalf of Detroit Schoolchildren

Sidley obtained a landmark victory on behalf of a class of Detroit schoolchildren who have been denied their fundamental right of access to literacy. In an historic decision, the Sixth Circuit held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution confers a fundamental right of access to literacy, and held that the Detroit schoolchildren stated a claim that they were deprived of this right. This groundbreaking decision is the first time a court has held that there is a fundamental federal right of access to literacy, and has been described as “the most momentous circuit court decision in the field of education in decades.”

The class action, originally filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, was brought against Michigan’s then-Governor Rick Snyder and state education officials. That court dismissed the complaint, on the ground that the schoolchildren failed to state a claim because there is no fundamental right to a defined minimum level of education by which they can attain literacy. On April 23, 2020, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ due process claim, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Sidley partner Carter Phillips, who argued the appeal, said, “The court in Cincinnati took a bold step today in recognizing a fundamental constitutional right of access to literacy and in doing so has given hope to the school children in Detroit who were so neglected for so long.”

The Sidley team worked together with co-counsel Mark Rosenbaum, Director of Public Counsel’s Opportunity Under Law project, and Professor Evan Caminker of the University of Michigan Law School, who said, "This is an extraordinary legal ruling. The court recognized that both historically and today, access to a basic minimum education supporting literacy is an extraordinary prerequisite for full participation in our constitutional democracy."

In the opinion, the Sixth Circuit cited decisions by the Supreme Court underscoring “the critical importance of education.” The Sixth Circuit recognized that public education is “foundational to our system of self-governance,” and “a great equalizer, giving all children a chance to meet or outperform society’s expectations, even when faced with substantial disparities in wealth and with past and ongoing racial inequality.” For these reasons, the Court held, “a basic minimum education has a longstanding presence in our history and tradition, and is essential to our concept of ordered liberty.”

“Today’s decision will help ensure that future schoolchildren are not burdened with the stigma of illiteracy, but instead benefit from — in the court’s words — the ‘great equalizer’ of a basic education," said Sidley partner Tacy Flint. "I’m honored to represent the plaintiffs in this case, who have fought for and deserve the chance to learn, and to work alongside all the lawyers on this outstanding team.”

In recognition for the outstanding quality of Sidley’s work and the service that the firm has given to their clients, Public Counsel previously awarded Sidley its 2019 Public Counsel Pro Bono Award.

Voting Rights Brief

On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of so-called “faithless elector” laws, which penalize or remove presidential electors who fail to vote for the candidate they have pledged to support. Sidley filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of the Campaign Legal Center and Issue One in support of the states in the two cases before the Court: Chiafalo v. State of Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca.

Supreme Court Brief on Behalf of Prisoners Convicted by Non-Unanimous Juries

Sidley filed an opening merits brief in the Supreme Court in defense of the rights of prisoners in Louisiana and Oregon who were convicted by non-unanimous juries under state laws the Supreme Court invalidated earlier in 2020. In April, the Supreme Court recognized that non-unanimous jury rules in Louisiana and Oregon offended the Constitution and were rooted in discrimination based on race and religion; however, the Court left open the question of whether those already in prison as a result of non-unanimous jury verdicts could challenge their convictions in federal habeas proceedings. Sidley now urges the Supreme Court to hold that prisoners convicted by non-unanimous juries should have a path to a new trial.