Pursuing Justice at the Highest Level

‍

Sidley’s Supreme Court pro bono program has represented clients at the Court for many years. Our pro bono presence at the Court is well reflected in our body of work. Committed to pro bono at the highest level, we have taken on many civil and criminal cases that have produced precedent-setting decisions and made a lasting impact for our clients.

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. Sidley lawyers supervise second- and third-year law students in researching and drafting briefs in cases at the petition stage and on the merits. The students also monitor lower court decisions to identify promising cases to take to the Court. The Clinic’s classroom sessions feature in-depth instruction on Supreme Court practice and guest speakers from the Court, the Solicitor General’s Office, and the Court’s press corps. Sidley partners Carter Phillips and Tobias Loss-Eaton serve as the Clinic’s co-directors, together with Northwestern Professor Danielle Hamilton and Jeffrey Green of Green Law Chartered.

In 2023, the Clinic worked on a dozen cases at the petition stage, including successful petitions for a writ of certiorari in Brown v. United States, No. 22-6389, addressing the proper interpretation of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s “serious drug offense” provision, and Fischer v. United States, No. 23-5572, addressing the proper scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)’s obstruction offense. The Clinic also contributed to briefing and oral argument preparation in multiple merits cases, including Brown and Fischer, and mooted other advocates in merits cases, including United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915, Smith v. Arizona, No. 22-899, and McIntosh v. United States, No. 22-7386.  At the end of the 2023 term, the Clinic secured a victory in Fischer, where the Court ruled that § 1512(c) is limited to obstruction offenses implicating the integrity of evidence, and in Vincent v. Garland, No. 23-683, where the Court vacated a ruling rejecting our client’s constitutional claim and remanded the case for further proceedings.