Protecting Civil and Constitutional Rights

Supreme Court Clinic

A key component of our pro bono Supreme Court work is the Carter G. Phillips/Sidley Austin LLP Supreme Court Clinic at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. In 2024, the Clinic — and the Appellate Advocacy Center of which it is a part — were renamed in honor of Sidley partner and law school alumnus Carter Phillips, a founder and longtime co-director of the Clinic. Through the Clinic, 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 Lauerman Chartered PLLC.

In 2024, the Clinic worked on 16 cases at the petition stage, including successfully securing a grant, vacatur, and remand in Fields v. Colorado, No. 24-5460, addressing how the Sixth Amendment applies to state habitual-offender regimes. The Clinic has also contributed to briefing and oral argument preparation in multiple merits cases — including Rivers v. Lumpkin, No. 23-1345, and Soto v. United States, No. 24-320 — and mooted other advocates in merits cases. The Clinic also filed a merits-stage amicus brief in Riley v. McHenry, No. 23-1270, on behalf of immigration legal services providers.

Fighting for Educational Equality

Sidley recently secured another pro bono litigation victory in defense of a temporary admissions policy that Boston established for three of its elite public schools during the COVID pandemic. The temporary plan was developed to achieve a student body that more closely mirrored the population of the City of Boston and allocated seats by utilizing race-neutral constitutional factors, including academic performance and zip codes. The case was brought by the Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence, which claimed that the temporary admissions policy had a disparate impact on white and Asian students and violated the Equal Protection Clause and Massachusetts law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit disagreed, finding that the Coalition’s claims lacked merit and failed to establish disparate impact. The Court also held that the Coalition failed to demonstrate that the policy was motivated by invidious discriminatory intent. On December 9, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Coalition’s petition for certiorari, agreeing with arguments set forth in the brief Sidley filed on behalf of the following Defense Intervenors: The Boston Branch of the NAACP, The Greater Boston Latino Network, Asian Pacific Islander Civil Action Network, Asian American Resource Workshop, and two minor children.

The Sidley team secured its first litigation victory in 2021 when U.S. District Judge William Young, after a bench trial, upheld the temporary admissions plan. This was followed by another victory when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied the plaintiff’s request for an injunction pending an appeal, and then subsequently affirmed the District Court’s decision.

Rare Win in Long-Running FOIA Case

A Sidley pro bono team in New York and Chicago secured a rare Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) win against the Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of filmmaker and investigative journalist Assia Boundaoui. In May 2024, U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the Northern District of Illinois issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting, in part, our client’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment and concluding that the DOJ improperly used FOIA’s privacy exemptions to redact race, ethnicity, and nationality from records sought by Boundaoui to produce her 2018 award-winning documentary film “The Feeling of Being Watched.” This is believed to be the first case in which a court has required the production of all three identifiers — race, ethnicity, and nationality — to a plaintiff.

In his order, Judge Durkin found that, among other things, the FBI regularly left unredacted the word “white,” but redacted the word that followed white, an ethnic descriptor of the subject, which the Sidley team argued was likely to be either “Arab” or “Middle Eastern/North African.” The court emphasized that releasing this redacted information will “further the public interest by shedding light on the extent to which the FBI investigation Operation Vulgar Betrayal (OVB) ‘targeted Arabs and Muslims’” in the Chicago suburbs. The court also acknowledged that the release of this information is squarely within the core purpose of FOIA, which is “to expose what the government is doing.”

Notably, the OVB investigation resulted in zero terrorism-related convictions and was closed more than 20 years ago, but the FBI has insisted on keeping its investigation shrouded in secrecy, and — prior to this decision — had entirely withheld 25,000 of the 32,000 responsive pages, and redacted over 70% of anything produced to Plaintiff.

The decision is the latest victory in Sidley’s longstanding pro bono representation of Boundaoui. Sidley’s prior efforts were featured in her documentary, which followed her investigation into widespread FBI surveillance that took place in the 1990s in the largely Muslim-American neighborhood of Bridgeview, Illinois, where Boundaoui grew up. Sidley previously obtained significant wins for the client, including compelling the government to reveal a second, previously undisclosed investigation that continued the work of OVB.

Victories in Two Religious Liberties Cases

Sidley teams achieved significant pro bono victories in two religious freedom cases in 2024, upholding the rights of individuals and organizations seeking to practice their faith and serve their communities without facing discriminatory regulations and government intervention.

In a precedent-setting case on behalf of an individual client, Fernando Nunez, a Sidley team in D.C. secured a sweeping appellate victory before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In the district court, Nunez brought a suit claiming that the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by denying him three religious accommodations, including the right to engage in congregate prayer with visitors. The lower court ultimately granted summary judgment to the Pennsylvania DOC on each of Mr. Nunez’s claims. In a published opinion, the Third Circuit panel unanimously held that the district court had failed to hold the DOC to its burden under RLUIPA and vacated the judgment below. In its decision, the court held that strict scrutiny applies to RLUIPA claims. Additionally, it held that “if the prison accommodates secular activities that implicate its allegedly ‘compelling interest,’ it must explain why the same flexibility extended to others cannot be extended to” the claimant. The court concluded that “the DOC has not even attempted to put forward actual evidence” that denying Nunez’s requests furthers a compelling interest, or that there are no less restrictive means available, and therefore failed to satisfy either prong of strict scrutiny.

The decision is the latest victory in Sidley’s longstanding pro bono representations in support of religious exercise and religious freedom with Yale Law School’s Free Exercise Clinic. Through the clinic, students work with experienced litigators from Sidley’s First Amendment, Regulatory Litigation, and Supreme Court, Appellate, and Litigation Strategies groups to represent clients in the United States Supreme Court and courts across the country.

In another case, a cross-office Sidley team successfully represented the Seventh-Day Baptist Church of Daytona Beach, Florida, in its challenge against the City of Daytona Beach’s unconstitutional ordinance prohibiting only places of worship from operating food pantries within redevelopment areas. The Church had operated a food pantry in the City of Daytona Beach for 16 years, serving over 80 families every week. In the fall of 2023, the City suddenly began enforcing Land Development Code § 5.2.B.13.e.i.(c) against the Church, an ordinance prohibiting places of worship — and only places of worship — from operating food pantries in a redevelopment area. The City cited the Church with a violation of the ordinance and warned that any future violation would result in a $5,000 penalty.

The Church, unable to sustain the financial burden, temporarily closed its food pantry and hired Sidley. Sidley filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and an amended complaint seeking to invalidate the ordinance as unconstitutional. The amended complaint challenged the City’s ordinance under the First Amendment and RLUIPA.

In response to the lawsuit, the City agreed to repeal the food pantry ordinance. On December 18, 2024, the City officially struck the food pantry ordinance from its code, repealing the unconstitutional law and allowing all places of worship to freely exercise their religious beliefs and continue their mission of feeding and caring for the poor. Sidley’s successful representation of the Church embodies the firm’s longstanding commitment to ensuring that the promises enshrined in the Constitution stand observed and protected for all.

Prisoners’ Rights

Section 1983

Sidley’s Section 1983 practice has been a fixture of our pro bono work for many years. The firm worked on more than a dozen Section 1983 matters in 2024, amounting to more than 13,000 pro bono hours on behalf of our clients. These matters include suits seeking redress for victims of police misconduct and individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated while incarcerated in jails or prisons. In addition, our lawyers also regularly partner with legal service organizations and experts in the field to file amicus briefs advocating for the rights of prisoners and other vulnerable citizens. We represent clients across the country in trial courts, appellate courts, and at the United States Supreme Court. In 2024, Sidley lawyers worked to achieve settlements and litigation victories for numerous firm clients.

Recognition for Prisoners’ Rights Advocacy

Two Sidley teams in Chicago were honored for Excellence in Pro Bono and Public Interest Service by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the Chicago Chapter of the Federal Bar Association. Both Sidley teams helped their clients achieve settlements in 2024 after years of litigation.

One Sidley team is being honored for representing a client in a lawsuit asserting more than a dozen Cook County Jail officers were liable for using excessive force, failing to intervene, and failing to provide medical care after officers assaulted our client in his cell and left him locked inside with a broken arm and no medical attention for nearly an hour.

Another Sidley team received the award for representing an Illinois prisoner with paraplegia requiring the use of a wheelchair, in his lawsuit against prison medical providers who deliberately delayed, deferred, and denied necessary specialty care for his chronic pressure wounds and bladder spasms, leaving him in unsanitary conditions and with painful open wounds and infections.

Challenge to Interrogation Tactics

Sidley recently obtained a pro bono victory for a client currently serving a life sentence in his claim to the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission (TIRC), which was established by the Illinois State Legislature in 2009 to gather evidence about a claim of torture occurring in Cook County by a previously convicted defendant and determine whether there is sufficient credible evidence of torture to merit further judicial review of the convicted defendant’s claim. TIRC’s authority extends to any claims in which a police officer coerced a confession that was used against the defendant to obtain his or her conviction. The Sidley client alleged that in 1984, he was tortured during custodial interrogation by Chicago Police officers under the supervision or command of notorious Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge, resulting in a coerced confession that was used against him at trial. The TIRC found sufficient credible evidence of torture to merit judicial review of the client’s claims. Burge, who died in 2018, was found guilty in 2010 of lying about directly participating in or implicitly approving the torture of at least 118 people in police custody in order to force false confessions.

Compassionate Release

Sidley has a dedicated practice representing incarcerated individuals seeking compassionate release. Sidley represented more than 10 federal prisoners in 2024 and filed motions to reduce prison sentences under statutes like the First Step Act, which allows individuals who present extraordinary and compelling circumstances and present little risk to the community to seek a sentence reduction. The grounds for these motions often involve serious health conditions, disparities in sentencing, family circumstances, or sexual abuse in prison.

One Sidley team secured a significant pro bono victory in June 2024 when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted a motion for the compassionate release of a 63-year-old Sidley client who served 27 years of a life sentence for a drug-related conspiracy. The court held that extraordinary and compelling reasons existed for granting the client’s release from prison due to “family circumstances.” The client’s wife of over three decades was diagnosed with Stage IV lung cancer and had no nearby family to aid in her care. The Sidley team further demonstrated — and the court cited as reasons for its decision — evidence that the client obtained three college degrees, served as a Suicide Watch Companion, had a minimal disciplinary record, and had secured employment commitments in the event of release. His request was also supported by the prison chaplain, who noted that it was only the third time in 22 years that he had a made such a statement on an inmate’s behalf. The client was released to his family on June 25, 2024.

In March 2025, another Sidley team secured compassionate release for a veteran diagnosed with terminal cancer while incarcerated in federal prison. After more than a decade behind bars for a non-violent drug offense, the client was released from prison just 16 days after Sidley filed a motion for early release on his behalf. The Sidley team argued that the client’s rapidly progressing medical condition constituted extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting his release so he could reunite with his family and receive palliative care outside of prison.