Global

Through this pro bono matter, Sidley and the ACLU of Louisiana aim to help effect badly needed policy change within the police department. The lawsuit seeks redress for violations of an officer’s First Amendment right to speak on matters of public concern, Louisiana’s Whistleblower Statutes, and the Constitution of the State of Louisiana, as well as injunctive relief for defamation, civil conspiracy, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

In 2020, Sidley joined the ACLU of Louisiana's new program, titled “Justice Lab: Putting Racist Policing on Trial.” The initiative aims to bring strategic lawsuits to combat racism by challenging racially discriminatory policing practices, while training the next generation of lawyers in civil rights litigation.

On June 2, 2022, a settlement was approved between Sidley pro bono client and freelance journalist Linda Tirado and the City of Minneapolis in a case being heard in the Federal District Court of Minnesota. The settlement includes a substantial monetary sum for Ms. Tirado, as well as acknowledgements from the City with respect to policies and procedures related to the use of force.

Ms. Tirado found herself at the center of a national outcry when she was permanently blinded in one eye from a 40-mm less-lethal projectile fired by a Minneapolis Police Department officer while she covered a protest in Minneapolis in the wake of George Floyd’s murder. Sidley filed a complaint against the City of Minneapolis and others on Ms. Tirado’s behalf stating claims for violations of her rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, Conspiracy Against Constitutional Rights, and common law battery.

In February 2021, after a full briefing and oral argument from both sides, the court denied motions to dismiss from the defendants and ordered discovery to proceed, which eventually led to the approved settlement.

“This was a precedent-setting case because we prevailed over the City’s attempt to dismiss Linda’s civil right claims, which usually requires evidence of a pattern of misconduct over a long period of time,” said Tai-Heng Cheng, co-lead pro bono counsel for Ms. Tirado’s case and global co-head of the international arbitration and trade practice at Sidley. “We believe that by preserving our civil rights claim in the City’s failed motion to dismiss, we were able to trigger changes in police procedures relating to the use of force, generally, including against journalists covering constitutionally-protected protests. This was one of our stated goals.”

“We are also pleased that we were able to settle this case for a large sum of money before it went to trial,” said Mr. Cheng. “As such, we avoided a delay in paying Linda, who desperately needs the money to pay her medical bills and to support her two children.”

Ms. Tirado’s case raises important questions related to the rights of independent journalists to cover newsworthy events, and has received widespread media coverage.

“Although no amount of money will completely restore the professional damage or resolve the trauma my family and I have endured these past two years, this settlement will allow me to get back on my feet and properly care for my kids. I’m grateful to put this behind me and look forward to continuing my work on covering issues of racial, social, and economic justice.”

— Linda Tirado, photojournalist and Sidley client

On behalf of the Boston Branch of the NAACP, and working with Lawyers for Civil Rights and Greater Boston Legal Services, Sidley obtained a victory in a matter seeking to uphold an interim admissions plan for Boston’s highly selective public high schools. This win is expected to have implications for equity in Boston school admissions policies for years to come. On April 15, 2021, U.S. District Court Judge William Young upheld a one-year admissions plan that allocated seats in Boston’s elite high schools by academic performance and zip code as race-neutral and constitutional. The plan was developed to achieve geographic, economic, and racial diversity. This was followed by another victory on April 28, 2021, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied the plaintiff’s request for an injunction pending an appeal.

The Sidley team committed more than 745 pro bono hours to the representation of the NAACP Boston Branch, along with several other community organizations and individuals, in this matter.

The victory was reported by several media outlets, including The Boston Globe and Boston NPR station WBUR.

The students also monitor lower court decisions to identify potential candidates for petitions for writs of certiorari. Sidley partners Carter Phillips and Jeffrey Green serve as the Northwestern Supreme Court Clinic’s directors, along with Northwestern Professor Xiao Wang and Sidley project assistants Maggie Bahnson and Kelsey Handschuh.

In 2021, the Clinic filed eight petitions for a writ of certiorari on a range of issues detailed below. Students also contributed to briefing and oral argument preparation in two cases on the merits (United States v. Cooley and Greer v. United States). The questions presented in the students’ petitions were:

Chad Thompson v. Richard DeWine: 1. Whether ever-changing and ongoing government-issued COVID-19 restrictions moot First Amendment challenges to ballot access restrictions. 2. Whether and how the First Amendment applies to regulations that impede a person’s ability to place an initiative on the ballot.

Penn v. United States: 1. Whether United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), compels overruling Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977), which requires only a minimal nexus to interstate commerce to sustain Congress’ exercise of its Commerce Clause power. 2. Whether, under this Court’s decision in United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980), a felon who flees from law enforcement before discarding a firearm is precluded as a matter of law from presenting an affirmative defense of justification for his unlawful possession of the gun.

Rigsby v. Colorado: Whether the Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment require that a defendant receive a new trial where a jury returns mutually exclusive guilty verdicts.

King v. United States: Whether a crime that requires a resulting death categorically includes, as an element, “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another” under the elements clause of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A), even when the offense can be proven without a volitional use of force.

Baxter v. Superintendent SCI: Whether an erroneous reasonable-doubt instruction that would be structural error on direct appeal warrants a presumption of prejudice when raised in a federal habeas petition through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

Haggerty v. United States: 1. Whether the “interracial” nature of a minor offense in Indian country is an element of 18 U.S.C. § 1152, rather than an affirmative defense, and thus must be both pled and proved by the prosecution. 2. Whether the government must plead and prove the “interracial” nature of a minor offense in Indian country to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1152. 

Santos-Portillo v. United States: Whether a federal court has the discretion to exclude evidence obtained by federal law enforcement agents in violation of a federal statute, as three circuits have held, or whether courts per se lack such authority in the absence of a constitutional violation or express statutory remedy, as the lower court and three other circuits have held.

Nishiie v. United States: 1. Whether the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act suspends the statute of limitations for fraud offenses that have no nexus to the war or armed conflict. 2. Whether the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act applies based upon the statutory definition of the offense charged rather than factual allegations of the defendant’s conduct.

United States v. Justin Eugene Taylor: Whether 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A)’s definition of “crime of violence” excludes attempted Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951(a) — this amicus brief was written on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.