South Texas College of Law SCOTUS Clinic Bests Yale Law School SCOTUS Clinic

In Houston Community College v. Wilson, Justice Gorsuch's unanimous decision faulted respondent for failing to file a cross petition.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court decided Houston Community College v. Wilson.  I'll take a point of personal privilege to highlight that the Petitioner was represented by Rick Morris, an alum of the South Texas College of Law Houston. And throughout the case, Rick worked closely with students at the South Texas College of Law Houston to prepare. Their work led to a unanimous majority opinion by Justice Gorsuch.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 today in favor of STCL Houston 1991 alumnus Rick Morris, in a case he argued Nov. 2 – after preparation with STCL students and professors. Read more here: https://t.co/UGsvUa1Djo

#STCLHouston #SCOTUS #STCLAlumni #LawSchool pic.twitter.com/YIDfJGUfyg

— STCL Houston (@STCL_Houston) March 24, 2022

I am very, very proud of our students.

Respondent, on the other hand, was represented by McDermott Will & Emery and the Yale Law School Supreme Court Clinic. And Justice Gorsuch faulted Respondent for not filing a cross-petition:

But as merits briefing unfolded, Mr. Wilson did not just seek to defend the Fifth Circuit's judgment; he also sought to challenge it in part. Specifically, he argued that the Fifth Circuit erred to the extent that it upheld the Board's nonverbal punishments as consistent with the First Amendment. Generally, however, when a respondent in this Court seeks to alter a lower court's judgment, he must file and we must grant a cross-petition for review. See Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U. S. 66, 72 (2013). Mr. Wilson filed no such petition in this case. As a result, we decline to take up his challenge to the Fifth Circuit's judgment, and the only question before us remains the narrow one on which we granted certiorari: Does Mr. Wilson possess an actionable First Amendment claim arising from the Board's purely verbal censure?

 

At least in this case, a well-respected Houston law firm and the South Texas College of Law Houston bested a global law firm and Yale Law School. We'll take the victory. Rick now joins the ranks of other South Texas alum who argued at the Supreme Court, including Lynne Liberato.

Comments

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

IANAL and congrats from me would be a big nothing burger. But congrats anyway.

The bleatings from Yale will be interesting. So will the bleatings from the usual suspects here.

[DaivdBehar]

Yale scumbags defeated by real people, for once.

[DaivdBehar]

Eugene attended Yale. I attended 10th grade World History class. Eugene is oblivious to the lawless content of the law plagiarized from Scholasticism and from monks. He is an idiot savant. He knows minutiae of case law, but is a denier of the obvious illegality of his profession. Yale produces real dumbasses and deniers.

[David Nieporent]

Eugene attended Yale.

No, he didn't.

I attended 10th grade World History class.

Doubtful.

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

In the spirit of March Madness, I can enjoy this sort of nerdy trash talking. It’s like Team Bulldog & Roz bested Team Frazier & Niles in an academic decathlon, and then gave the Brothers Crane the business on the radio the following day.

[Lee Moore]

Generally, however, when a respondent in this Court seeks to alter a lower court's judgment, he must file and we must grant a cross-petition for review. See Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U. S. 66, 72 (2013)

Is this an actual rule ? The citation suggests that it is, the "generally" suggests that it sorta kinda is, but sometimes sorta kinda isn't. I can see that it would be unfair to the other side if SCOTUS started deciding questions that had not been argued.

But then again SCOTUS does from time to time come up with answers that don't seem to be much like anything either party argued. Its hard to believe, for example, that pretty much anything in a Kennedy opinion could have been argued by anyone else, even in theory. On the other hand, in a collusive lawsuit, where both parties are really on the same side, and they deliberately don't litigate a critical question that would have been put by the real, unrepresented, other side, it seems dangerous for SCOTUS to give them a gift wrapped precedent uncontested.

So is the rule that they can't decide questions that haven't been asked, but in response to questions that have been asked, they can supply answers that bear no relation to the answers suggested by the litigants ?

[Lee Moore]

I suppose that maybe SCOTUS polices the collusive litigation point by certifying the question. Sometimes it certifies a different question to the one that got asked.

[dwb68]

Based on the garbage I see coming out of YLS, it does not surprise me. Their law students seem to mistake table pounding for real argument. Does YLS even care about graduating successful law students anymore? They are not admitting people who believe in zealous advocacy, only antics, so it seems unlikely to me.

[Sarcastr0]

Yale graduates still do pretty well, I think.

Maybe even better than South Texas graduates.

[SimonP]

Yes, a bit better.

I hesitate to poke fun, because the sorts of students who end up at a law school like South Texas don’t typically come from circumstances where they have ample resources to prepare for law school or stable family support. You’re talking about first generation college students, single moms, people who need to work while going to school.

So really the focus should be on the school’s abysmal career development department. They are seriously underserving their students, with less than 70% of their 2019 class placed in JD-required employment after ten months, and almost 13% of their class still looking for any kind of work. And maybe about half of those people with jobs were working in tiny law - small offices, perhaps jobs they’d lined up through friends or family.

[DaivdBehar]

Do you have data on earnings 10 years after graduation, which is the sincere valuation of the work of the person?

[DaivdBehar]

If Yale Law grads are really smart, why don't they know what high school students who passed 10th grade World History, Semester 1? For example, Eugene, is in denial of the plagiarism of the law of the Catholic catechism. That is unlawful in our secular nation. I learned about Scholasticism in high school. That Yale Law grad knows nothing about it.

[wolfefan]

Congratulations! A question - what's the deal with lawyers often posing back to back with their arms crossed? I see it in ads, where I suppose it's supposed to suggest strength and resolve although that's not what the body language typically signifies. It's weird to me to see it here, in what is supposed to be a celebratory and happy moment.

[Charles Epperson]

I agree. I do like how the students, for the most part, are relaxed and happy to be there. I great message to portray. Heck, even a few are leaning on the furniture, totally at lease.

[Lee Moore]

what's the deal with lawyers often posing back to back with their arms crossed?

Just common or garden foot fetishism. If their arms were hanging down, au gorille, the young ladies' feet would be obscured.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The number of American law schools approximates 200. The number of those schools ranked below South Texas College Of Law Houston approximates 6.

The bright side, from the conservative perspective: No one accuses South Texas College Of Law Houston, it students, its graduates, or its alumni of the elitism railed against by country club Cletuses and prep school populists such as Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Ron DeSantis, and Tom Cotton.

[DaivdBehar]

Hi, Artie. What city do you live in? Its culture will explain everything.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It seems a bit disingenuous to credit this win to the "South Texas College of Law SCOTUS Clinic" when

1. There doesn't appear to be such a clinic;
2. The role of South Texas students appears to be helping an attorney moot the case; and
3. The petitioner was actually represented by the Stanford Supreme Court clinic.

[SimonP]

Jesus Christ, I had to double-check to confirm, but you're right. Josh is straight up misrepresenting South Texas's involvement here in order to promote his school. What a piece of shit.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is beginning to appear likely that neither Prof. Blackman nor Prof. Volokh will have the character to address this point.

For people who call themselves scholars, they seem to have extraordinarily low professional standards.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I don't really see any misrepresenting here, unless the OP has been amended since Noscitur's comment. The post makes clear what the Texas students' role was. I think you guys are being a little harsh. I'm reading the headline and some of the rhetoric as only semi-serious.

[benji]

He's just following his own school's traditions then.

[Skeptic]

What is a "prestigious" law school? Is it one where students are allowed to shout down speakers at a free speech forum, while an Associate Dean watches and does nothing? Is that a university, or is that a joke?

South Texas is simply a better school.

How long can the "elite" schools hang on to their reputation when they have become hostile to the precepts of genuine education?

[SimonP]

I am guessing that a “prestigious” law school might be one that does not have, as South Texas does, several FAQs on its admissions page addressing whether there is such a thing as an LSAT score or GPA that would be so low as to be disqualifying.

South Texas’s view on this is: applications are reviewed holistically. And here’s how you can apply for the public and private loans you’ll need to cover our $50k/year cost of attendance…

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" South Texas is simply a better school. "

In fairness to the clinger who wrote this rubbish, South Texas College Of Law Houston is better than six (of roughly 200) American law schools, according to those who have analyzed the issue.

So this point is solid, for those among the population that considers 'we are part of the top 97 percent' a worthy boast.

[bernard11]

South Texas is simply a better school.

We don't need any kind of ratings. Let's just compare salaries.

That is, if you trust markets.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If right-wingers trusted markets the way the claim to trust markets, they would be developing strong conservative-controlled law schools rather than (1) whimpering and whining about the superiority of liberal-libertarian law schools and (2) pushing for affirmative action with respect to conservative law professors.

[benji]

I don't see your evidence for the claim that South Texas is "simply" a better school.

[AtlGa41]

P-Blackman neglected to mention that Stanford Law School's SCOTUS Clinic - run by Jeff Fisher and Pam Karlan - were on HCCS's cert petition, reply in support of cert, opening merits brief, and reply merits brief. (STCL's SCt clinic was not on any briefs.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Profs. Blackman and Volokh apparently consider it inconvenient to address that point. So they will ignore it, figuring most of this blog's target audience is too ignorant or partisan to know or care about this issue.

[Ben Gerald]

This is false. The Houston Community College System was represented by the Stanford SCOTUS Clinic, not the South Texas SCOTUS Clinic. In fact, as best I can tell, there is no South Texas SCOTUS Clinic, it does not exist. There is a South Texas Appellate Litigation Clinic, but according to the school's press release, that clinic seems to have played no role in writing the briefs, and its name is not on the briefs (Stanford's is). Rather, the South Texas Appellate Clinic seems to have helped Morris prepare for oral argument. That is nice, but it would be wrong to say that the clinic won the case--one would not say that those who participate an a winning advocate's moot court won the case. Again, all of this is clear from the briefs in the case and the South Texas press release. Either Blackman is lying, or he is too lazy to look up the basic facts that he is posting about. Either would be true to form for him.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Either Blackman is lying, or he is too lazy to look up the basic facts that he is posting about. "

You make that sound like a bad thing. I sense that this devotion to polemics and shabby partisanship is what led Prof. Volokh to invite Prof. Blackman to become a Conspirator.

Prof. Volokh is welcome to correct any misimpression in this context. But I expect The Volokh Conspiracy to correct neither any such misimpression nor the record Prof. Blackman appears to have misstated at this "academic" blog.

[Kleppe]

Rev talking about someone else's "devotion to polemics and shabby partisanship" is just *chef's kiss*. By the way, which law school did you attend?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you didn't like polemics and downscale partisanship -- with ample helpings of white, male grievance -- you wouldn't be here.

You seem to be this blog's target audience.

[hobie]

I figure Ben's a liar. I see no evidence that conservative lawyers are presenting complete fiction these days

[hobie]

Grisham should do a novel on South Texas law school. Kinda like The Rainmaker but worse

[OtisAH]

Congrats to them. Still, the performance of multiple Harvard and Yale law grads the past few years does suggest this isn’t as huge a win as it appears on paper.