Law students attend Supreme Court case

Last week, eight third-year Penn Law students attended a U.S. Supreme Court hearing on a case they had helped research in coursework for the school’s Supreme Court Clinic.

The case, Padilla v. Kentucky, examined whether defense lawyers are obligated to inform non-citizen clients that pleading guilty will result in deportation.

Founded last month and supervised by Professor Stephanos Bibas, the clinic is a partnership between Penn Law and Washington, D.C., law firm Paul Hastings.

Beyond the required first-year courses, the only prerequisite for enrollment is the Supreme Court Practice Seminar, which “provides insight into the documents unique to the Supreme Court, the Court as an institution, the Justices’ collective decision-making process and the key players in Supreme Court litigation,” according to Law student and clinic participant Rachel Fendell.

Fendell, who researched immigration issues for the Padilla case, described her involvement in the clinic as “an amazing experience.”

“Very few attorneys have an opportunity to litigate before the Court, so we all feel incredibly fortunate to be having this opportunity so early in our career,” she said, adding that “while the Clinic is an extensive time commitment, knowing that its work is helping an actual person has made the work well worth it.”

In addition to conducting legal research for the briefs in Padilla last year, students in the clinic were also “in close contact with Paul Hastings and its lead partner Steve Kinnaird on strategy for the case and the Supreme Court argument,” said Law student Rick Bold, who participated as well.

The clinic also hosted “moot court” at Penn last month to help Kinnaird prepare for Padilla, at which students formulated potential questions he may face at the Court.

Law student and participant William Coglianese likened the Clinic to a small law firm.

“We all split up research tasks and work in small groups to get everything together quickly enough to keep pace with Supreme Court legislation,” he said.

According to Coglianese, the clinic selects its cases based on whether they address “important issues” or have “sparked disagreement among the lower courts.”

After work on a case has begun, “sometimes we’re researching the way the lower courts have handled an issue, which may be a way of showing the Justices that a particular result is practical — or not,” he said. “Sometimes we’re looking into the consequences that will result if the Court rules in a particular way.”

Students are also required to research individual Justices to tailor parts of an argument to those more likely to be skeptical of their position.

“From the outset, we’ve had to keep up with a very fast pace, often with new developments along the way,” Coglianese said. “This kind of experience would typically be hard to come by, but we’ve been able to jump right into it.”

The clinic is currently working on Abbott v. Abbott and Astrue v. Ratliff, the first of which will be heard in January.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.