Welcome to the NYU Law School Supreme Court Clinic web site
The NYU Supreme Court Litigation Clinic represents clients pro bono before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Clinic is a joint project of NYU School of Law and Jones Day. It is directed by Professor Samuel Estreicher of NYU and by Jones Day appellate specialists Donald Ayer and Meir Feder.
- Giles v. State Of California, No. 07-6053 (Brief for Petitioner)
- In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 62 (2004), the Supreme Court stated that the forfeiture by wrongdoing rule, under the Sixth Amendment, “extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.” The question presented by this case is: Does a criminal defendant “forfeit” his or her Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause claims upon a mere showing that the defendant has caused the unavailability of a witness, as some courts have held, or must there also be an additional showing that the defendant’s actions were undertaken for the purpose of preventing the witness from testifying, as other courts have held?
- Gulati v. Mukasey, No 07-1005 (Petition)
- In immigration cases, section 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) removes judicial review over actions “the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General . . . .” An Immigration Judge’s authority to continue removal proceedings is nowhere mentioned in this statute. The question presented is: Did the Seventh Circuit err in holding, contrary to the position of eight of its sister circuits and the Attorney General, and in agreement with two other courts of appeals, that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review of an Immigration Judge’s decision to deny a continuance in a removal proceeding?