supreme court visit for law students

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor Offers Candid Insights During Visit to Berkeley Law

• Share article on Facebook
• Share article on Twitter
• Share article on LinkedIn
• Email article

By Andrew Cohen 

Sonia Sotomayor hasn’t changed jobs since her last visit to Berkeley Law in 2017. Yet in many ways, her work as a United States Supreme Court justice seems decidedly different. 

Back then, the Court featured an even split of progressive and conservative justices, with centrist Anthony Kennedy often the swing vote in 5-4 decisions. Now, with a clear 6-3 conservative majority, Sotomayor often finds herself decrying major rulings on issues from affirmative action and reproductive choice to LGBTQ rights and student loan relief. 

Nevertheless, at the annual Herma Hill Kay Memorial Lecture Monday before a packed crowd of Berkeley Law students, faculty, and staff inside Zellerbach Hall, she conveyed optimism about the power of citizen engagement fueled by a sense of justice and historical perspective. 

“What choice do you have but to fight the good fight?” Sotomayor said during her hour-long discussion with Dean Erwin Chemerinsky . “You can’t throw up your hands and walk away. That’s not a choice. That’s abdication. That’s giving up. How can you look at the heroes like Thurgood Marshall, like the freedom fighters who went to lunch counters and got beaten, like John Lewis who marched over that bridge in Selma and got his head busted open — how can you look at those people and say you’re entitled to despair? You’re not. I’m not.”

Highlighting how it took nearly a century from the end of slavery after the Civil War until the Court ruled state-sanctioned racial segregation of public schools unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education , Sotomayor stressed how Americans relentlessly pursued justice throughout that time. 

“Change never happens on its own. Change happens because people care about moving the arc of the universe toward justice. It can take time, and it can take frustration,” she said. “It’s your turn to carry that burden, to show what you’re willing to do and what sacrifices you’re willing to take and figure out how to make things better. 

“I live in frustration. Every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and my heart. But I have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting.” 

Maintaining perspective 

Raised in a lower middle class area of the Bronx, Sotomayor went to Princeton and graduated summa cum laude . She attended Yale Law School, then worked as a prosecutor before entering private practice. Nominated to the federal district court in 1991, she joined the U.S. Second Court of Appeals in 1997.

Now in her 15th year on the Supreme Court, Sotomayor described how the work has become “all-consuming.” In recent years, she said the Court’s emergency calendar is busy almost on a weekly basis. 

“I understand the impact the Court has on people and on the country and sometimes the world, and so that’s what keeps me going,” she explained. “I had not appreciated how much of a burden that would be. Knowing we are the final word on constitutional law, in some ways it’s frightening because when we get it wrong, we’re impacting generations of people.”

Still, Sotomayor emphasized the importance, in any job, of taking time to unplug from work and connect with friends. Noting how today’s law students appear especially driven, she urged those in attendance to take their foot off the career gas pedal and described the benefits of her regular poker games — where participants make a point to talk about their lives, not their jobs.

“And every once in a while I have a friend like this one I call up,” Sotomayor said, pointing to Chemerinsky. “You have to find a way to detach from work in anything you do. Because if you become consumed by it you lose perspective. There have been times in my life when I’ve done that, and it’s always been for the worse and not for the better.”

Her affinity for connection was on full display. After a few minutes sitting onstage, she announced that she’d begin walking among the crowd, why Secret Service agents had to accompany her, and that she’d gladly take a few photos with audience members while answering Chemerinsky’s questions. 

Student appreciation

For 3L Jordan Cohen, managing editor of the Berkeley Law Business Law Journal and co-director of the school’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Team , seeing Sotomayor in person — and getting to ask her a question to end the event, prompting her to call him onstage for a photo together — provided a memorable moment. 

“It was somewhat surreal to speak to someone who so directly participates in bending the arc of history,” he said. “Justice Sotomayor is a gem of a human and lion of a jurist and I’ll never forget the experience of speaking to her. I cannot thank Dean Chemerinsky or Berkeley Law enough for this opportunity.”

1L Alejandra Zamora arrived with a few classmates three hours before the event began to ensure watching Sotomayor up close. Raised in a low-income Latine neighborhood of Santa Cruz, she described seeing a Supreme Court justice and its first Latina member as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

“Pursuing a profession in which less than 2% of attorneys are Latinas can make it challenging to find role models who look like me,” Zamora said. “To see a Latina in the highest court in the land is an absolute privilege and an opportunity I would have never had if I were not at Berkeley Law.”

A recipient of the California ChangeLawyer Award (given to future attorney leaders who aim to create a more just and representative justice system) and a student advocate for the La Alianza Workers’ and Tenants’ Rights Clinic , Zamora called the event highly motivating. 

“Justice Sotomayor is an inspirational woman who reminded me why I chose to pursue a career in law. She mentioned that our legal system is not perfect, but I, like her, believe that justice and equity are not created out of thin air — we must fight for them,” Zamora said. “Today was a very special day, and I will keep her words with me to remind myself to keep fighting in the challenging legal battles to come.”

A call for civility 

Even amid vehement disagreements with some of her fellow justices, and her blistering dissents to majority opinions she believes will erode fundamental rights, Sotomayor called mutual respect and civility hallmarks of Court culture. 

“One day at lunch, someone brought up a book about open hostility among Supreme Court justices during FDR’s presidency,” she said. “They spoke badly about each other to the press, many of them wouldn’t have lunch together, and they actively avoided one another. A colleague asked when that changed and why. Someone mentioned one chief justice, someone mentioned another chief justice, and then Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her very calm but commanding voice said it was when a woman came to the Court.” 

Sotomayor described how Sandra Day O’Connor, who became the Supreme Court’s first woman justice in 1981, was known for working collaboratively and collegially with Democrats during her career as a Republican politician and carried that into her new role. She said O’Connor eventually insisted that the justices have regular lunches together, a tradition that continues today. 

When Sotomayor replaced Justice David Souter, he offered advice from an epiphany he had while agitated with his colleagues. 

“He said, ‘I realized they are as passionate about what they believe about the Constitution, about law, about our country, as I am. We have a different way of understanding what’s good for the country and the law, but it’s not because they’re people of ill will, it’s because our passions are different,’” she recounted. “Once I understood that, it was easier to work with everyone. What I’ve found, which was taught to me by my mother, is that if you look for the good in people you can deal with the bad more easily …

“Whatever you want to think about Clarence Thomas’ jurisprudence, and he and I disagree the most on the Court, I can tell you that Clarence is the only justice who knows the name of every employee of the Supreme Court. He not only knows their names, he knows about their families … I can have a very civil conversation with him even though we have very passionate legal discussions.”

Insider insights 

When asked about her dissents, Sotomayor said they’re driven by different motivations and crafted for different audiences. She described how Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson — which in 1896 allowed state and local segregation laws under a “separate but equal” standard — created the template for Brown v. Board of Education over a half-century later. 

Sotomayor said she directs some of her dissents toward lower courts addressing a problem in a way she doesn’t think fully accounts for all the necessary factors. Others are geared to the legislative branch, the executive branch, and sometimes the American public. 

Asked about the role scholarship from law school faculty and students plays in her decisions, she said its importance grows when the case centers on an area of law she doesn’t know much about to help place the issue in context. 

As for oral arguments, Sotomayor said they carry more weight at the district court level because there it’s one judge deciding the case who is often “working fast to get through overwhelmed dockets.” Regardless of the venue, she advised the audience’s budding litigants to value preparation over performance. 

“You can’t win a case in an oral argument at the Supreme Court, but you can certainly lose one,” she said. “You’ve got to prepare … You can’t go in expecting a dramatic scene where a justice is going to get up and say, ‘Ah, I see, I see!’ Elucidate and clarify your position clearly.”

Weighing in on the value of judicial clerkships, Sotomayor noted that while private practice lawyers handle a few projects at a time, “clerking opens the door to dozens of cases, briefs, and presentations, seeing what courtroom tactics do and don’t work, and learning how judges think.” As for her own clerks, she looks for passion, clear legal writing to help her draft astute opinions that read simply enough for non-lawyers to follow, and kindness.

“The greatest compliment I ever receive is when my colleagues tell me, ‘You have the nicest law clerks.’ And I do because I really work at it,” she said. “ I don’t think brilliance gives you a license to be nasty or a license for arrogance … The worst thing you can do is make any decision believing you’re automatically right. You have to look at the other side and appreciate their perspective — you have to understand it to be able to address it.”

Watch the video of this event below.

02/02/2024 Topics: Constitutional and Regulatory , Diversity , Public Mission , Racial Justice , Social Justice and Public Interest , Student News

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Harvard announces return to required testing

Co-chairs of task forces share updates on community engagement

For all the other Willie Jacks

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan paid a visit to Harvard Law School to dispense advice to students.

Photos by Lorin Granger

If at first you don’t succeed…

Harvard Staff Writer

Elena Kagan offers new law students advice — and a shot of confidence

Elena Kagan was “petrified” when a Law School professor called on her on her first day of class. She blew her first exams, which situated her in “the bottom third of the class.”

And then, in her second semester at Harvard Law School , things started to change.

“When I first came here in 1983, I was very excited and very nervous,” Kagan, J.D. ’86, told a room packed with more than 500 students in Wasserstein Hall, with another 300 seated in an overflow room. “I hadn’t a clue of why I was here really, and I hadn’t the faintest idea of where it would lead to. I went to Law School to keep my options open and because I couldn’t think of anything else. Notwithstanding that I went to Law School for all the wrong reasons, when I got to Law School, I loved it. I really loved it.”

With refreshing candor and good humor, the Supreme Court associate justice shared anecdotes about her early days as a 1L in a conversation with former HLS Dean Martha Minow, the 300th Anniversary University Professor at Harvard, during an orientation program Thursday morning at HLS. Despite her rocky start, Kagan would eventually graduate magna cum laude , taking a first major step toward a seat on the bench of the nation’s highest court.

Dean John F. Manning was pleased to have Kagan talk to the new class, as he knew from experience that it would help them feel more relaxed and confident about themselves as their first semester was about to begin. Kagan, who was named HLS’s first female dean in 2003, has taken part in the orientation program for the past few years.

“I’m delighted that Justice Kagan returned again to Harvard Law School to teach our students and reconnect with our community,” said Manning, who attended HLS at the same time as Kagan. “She is not only a brilliant lawyer and jurist, but also a generous and funny teacher, colleague, and friend.”

Kagan spoke at length about her life as a law student and her journey to the high court. She offered advice on how to have a fulfilling legal career, but she also reminded students of the responsibility and privilege that comes with being a lawyer.

Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow and Justice Elena Kagan share a laugh.

Studying and practicing law in a country where no one is above the law gives attorneys a sense of mission and purpose, said Kagan. “You really get to do stuff that matters to people,” she said. “To live in a rule-of-law country is an incredible thing, and that has to be guarded very carefully, and you’re now part of that enterprise.”

Drawing lessons from her own experience, Kagan advised students to be open to serendipity and be willing to take risks. During her six years at the helm of HLS, Kagan saw many students planning their careers, including summer internships, in advance. It is a good idea to have plans, Kagan said, but students should be willing to abandon them to pursue something fun and exciting, which could lead to new passions and commitments.

Becoming a judge, said Kagan, was “mostly accidental.” After graduating from Harvard, Kagan clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, and then went to work at a law firm in Washington, D.C. In 1991, she became a professor at the University of Chicago Law School; she moved from there to a position as associate counsel to the president in the White House. She arrived at Harvard in 1999 as a law professor.

Kagan had expected to someday become president of a university, but her life path changed when she got a call in 2009 from President Barack Obama asking her to serve as U.S. Solicitor General. A year later Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court.

When Minow asked Kagan which title she prefers, Kagan quipped, “I like ‘Justice,’ myself.”

“You really get to do stuff that matters to people. To live in a rule-of-law country is an incredible thing, and that has to be guarded very carefully, and you’re now part of that enterprise.” Elena Kagan

As for her work as a Supreme Court Justice, Kagan said she enjoys reading cases, writing decisions, and thinking about the law, but she also relishes working with the other justices and following the rituals that are part of the institution. She said she misses both the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who taught her how to hunt, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired in 2018.

After listening to Kagan’s talk, first-year law students Nicole Franklin and Alison Roberts felt a mix of relief and gratitude.

“I love how she kind of helped me feel OK as I’m thinking about what it’s going to mean for me to be a lawyer,” said Franklin.

Roberts shared the sentiment.

“You come into a talk like this expecting to see someone who is such an intellectual titan and so far above your level,” said Roberts. “And yet I found it incredibly reassuring to hear how she struggled to get her footing here and she kind of followed what felt right at the time, not necessarily having a plan. For someone who is so accomplished, to be able to reassure students who are about to start is a testament to her as a teacher and as a person.”

Share this article

More like this.

Sotomayor: Judges should pull together

Judges and their toughest cases

Putting compassion into action

You might like.

Leading researchers cite strong evidence that testing expands opportunity

Leaders of efforts to combat antisemitism and anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bias describe what they’ve heard so far from members of the Harvard community

‘Reservation Dogs’ star Paulina Alexis offers behind-the-scenes glimpse of hit show, details value of Native representation

Forget ‘doomers.’ Warming can be stopped, top climate scientist says

Michael Mann points to prehistoric catastrophes, modern environmental victories

Yes, it’s exciting. Just don’t look at the sun.

Lab, telescope specialist details Harvard eclipse-viewing party, offers safety tips

• Future Students
• Parents/Families
• Alumni/Friends
• Current Students
• Faculty/Staff
• MyOHIO Student Center
• Visit Athens Campus
• Regional Campuses
• OHIO Online
• Faculty/Staff Directory
• University Community
• Research & Impact
• Alumni & Friends
• Search All News
• OHIO Today Magazine
• Colleges & Campuses
• For the Media

Helpful Links

Navigate OHIO

Connect With Us

High school students visit Ohio Supreme Court before staging their own mock trial in Athens

For two weeks, 20 high school students from across Ohio were immersed in law and justice, with their Summer Law & Trial Institute  (STLI) experience culminating in a mock trial in an Athens courtroom.

The high school students lived in Ohio University residence halls, visited the Supreme Court of Ohio in Columbus, and met with dozens of alumni attorneys and judges as they learned about different types of law and prepared for their own roles in the mock trial.

The institute has been educating high school students since 2016 and is run by Larry Hayman , Esq., an Ohio University alumnus who is director of legal engagement and the pre-law program with the Center for Law, Justice and Culture in the College of Arts and Sciences and the Center for Advising, Career and Experiential Learning .

Two undergraduate students, Elena Baker, a senior sociology–criminology major with a Certificate in Law, Justice and Culture , and Emily Green, a junior studying sociology–pre-law and English– literature, culture and writing , served as program assistants. Both students compete on Ohio University’s Mock Trial Team .

The high school students expressed that they were attracted to the selective summer institute for many different reasons. Max Piccolantonio of Columbus, for example, had plenty of questions about justice that he wanted to explore.

“I wanted to sign up for the STLI program because there are a lot of questions I have about law and learning that I wanted to absorb from people who have the experience and knowledge to provide the information I was looking for," Piccolantonio said.

This year’s program was held in a hybrid format. The first week was spent online, using the Teams platform to learn from speakers across the country. These included San Diego-based criminal defense attorney Alexa Jesser, Athens City Law Director Lisa Elison, and Brian Kelso, a judicial staff attorney to Judge Michael C. Mentel in Columbus.

The second week of the program was held at Ohio University's Athens campus. Students continued to engage with law students, lawyers, and judges throughout the week and even got the opportunity to go to the state’s capital and meet Ohio Supreme Court Justice Melody Stewart.

“I also loved being able to experience a real-life court case and seeing—through a small lens—how the court system works in certain areas and through certain cases,” said Emma Harris from Batavia, Ohio.

While learning from legal professionals every day and learning more about the law, students were also preparing their own mock trial case throughout their time in the program. The hypothetical case, “New Columbia v. Chris Archer,” centered around charges of first-degree murder and criminal hazing and provided students with an experiential learning opportunity where they could practice their skills in a courtroom.

Meeting a Who's Who of Attorneys in Ohio

Throughout the two weeks, more than 25 speakers talked with the students about their varied career paths. Speakers ranged from current law school students to Ohio Supreme Court justices, and hearing from legal professionals quickly became a part of the program that students eagerly anticipated.

They heard from attorneys in areas such as criminal law, education law, and civil law.

Athens city prosecutors, such as Tracy Meek and Justin Townley gave the students insight into the criminal side of law. They shared stories and gave the students helpful advice for future careers.

Mark Weiker, a managing partner at Abdnour Weiker LLP, met with the group via Teams and answered questions regarding his work in education law.

Students took a bus to Columbus and visited the Supreme Court of Ohio, the Columbus City Attorney’s Office, and the ACLU of Ohio. While at the Supreme Court of Ohio, students got to sit down and have lunch with Justice Stewart and her team, led by Senior Judicial Attorney Sarah Stafford.

A special aspect of the institute is that many of the speakers that the students met with are Ohio University alumni, notably Pierce Reed, director of policy and engagement for the Ohio Innocence Project who earned a B.A. in psychology in 1986 from the College of Arts and Sciences; Caitlyn McDaniel '15, staff attorney at Southeastern Ohio Legal Services who studied war and peace with the Center for International Studies; and Joseph Gibson, Chief Prosecutor at Columbus City Attorney’s Office who earned a B.A. in political science in 2005.

Mock Trial Makes a Thrilling Conclusion

On the last day of the program, the students showcased their mock trial that they had been working on tirelessly all week. The students were split up into four teams: Prosecution Green, Prosecution White, Defense Green, and Defense White.

The case was tried in the Athens County Municipal Court House in front of Judge Zach Saunders, the County Probate/Juvenile Court Judge in Athens County and also an OHIO alumnus, having earned a B.A.in political science in 2008.

The students’ families joined in on the fun and were able to watch both cases. The mock trial clearly was the best part of the program for many of the students. Many students in the program had never participated in a mock trial before, and the institute allowed them to prepare for and experience one.

James Cox, a student out of Cleveland, said, “As far as events in the program, I really liked the Supreme Court visit, the Athens court visit, and obviously the mock trial.” He also expressed that he felt that he had gotten more confident in his public speaking throughout this process.

The program is tuition-free for selected students through generous donations by Ohio University alumni.

University of Virginia School of Law

Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation Program

En banc institute.

• National Appellate Clinic Network
• Beyond the Classroom

The Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation Program at UVA Law School gives students a unique opportunity to learn the skills involved in appellate and Supreme Court practice, from the doctrinal basics to researching and writing actual briefs and arguing cases before federal courts around the country in clinic work. At the appellate level, clinic students often work on cases involving constitutional disputes and novel legal issues that may set new precedents that shape the law and guide the outcomes of future cases.

Students interested in appellate litigation have more than 30 curricular options available to prepare them for leading high-stakes appeals, including courses that explore the evolving federal judiciary, public speaking courses and classes on how to change public policy through impact litigation, among others.

Innovation in Appellate Work

At the center of the program are two clinics that give students hands-on experience in appellate practice. Launched in 2006, the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic has argued 18 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Students research cases, write briefs and prepare their instructors to argue before the Supreme Court when a case is granted cert. The Appellate Litigation Clinic allows students themselves to argue before federal appellate courts across the country, working in teams that also prepare briefs. Several other clinics also handle appellate matters.

In addition, the Law School hosts the National Appellate Clinic Network , an innovative program that makes it possible for clinics across the country to collaborate on litigation efforts, share briefs online and track the status of one another’s cases.

Through the En Banc Institute , students help prepare litigators who are scheduled to argue their appeals before a full panel of federal judges — an indication that the appeal carries significance and may progress to the Supreme Court. Students serve as opposing counsel and UVA Law faculty and alumni serve as judges while lawyers test out their arguments in moot court exercises.

An experienced group of current and former litigators who have argued in federal and state appellate courts across the country and at the U.S. Supreme Court are involved in the program. Judges; scholars in federal courts, evidence and civil procedure; experienced practitioners; and experts in negotiation, oral advocacy and more also teach courses.

Virginia’s faculty includes numerous experienced appellate litigators and former U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate clerks with deep knowledge of the judicial system and appellate advocacy. Among faculty members who teach core courses are:

• Scott Ballenger , director of the Appellate Litigation Clinic; a former partner in Latham & Watkins’ Supreme Court and appellate practice, he has argued multiple cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and dozens in courts of appeals and trial courts across the country.
• Cate Stetson , co-instructor of the Appellate Litigation Clinic and instructor of the Appellate Practice course; Stetson is the co-director of Hogan Lovells' nationally acclaimed appellate practice group and has made multiple arguments before the Supreme Court, every federal circuit court of appeals, state appellate courts ranging from New York to California, and district courts spanning the country from Alaska to Vermont.
• Molly Bishop Shadel , leader of the school’s public speaking and oral advocacy program; in addition to serving as a lawyer with Covington & Burling and with the Justice Department’s Office of Intelligence Policy and Review before joining UVA, Shadel studied theater at Northwestern University’s graduate directing program and directed plays professionally in New York.
• Xiao Wang , director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic and the En Banc Institute; Wang previously directed Supreme Court and federal appellate clinics at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law and has led appeals before state courts, federal circuit courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Extracurricular Training

Apart from the program’s offerings, several student organizations teach additional skills relevant to future appellate attorneys. Law School students organize and compete in an annual moot court competition, the William Minor Lile Moot Court, now almost 100 years old. The Extramural Moot Court team sponsors teams that travel across the country to compete, and students also regularly test their abilities in two international moot competitions that hone brief-writing and oral argument skills.

Beyond the Classroom  

Elizabeth Baia

Ian C. Kalish

Alison Nathan

Core Courses

Numerous courses educate students in the skills and knowledge needed for appellate advocacy and practice. These courses are central:

• Supreme Court Litigation Clinic , led by Professor Xiao Wang
• Appellate Litigation Clinic , led by Professor Scott Ballenger and appellate litigator Cate Stetson
• Appellate Practice , led by appellate litigator Cate Stetson
• Legal Research and Writing, led by D. Ruth Buck ’85, Joe Fore ’11 and Sarah Stewart Ware
• Graduate Legal Research and Writing , led by Karen Moran 
• Jurisprudence
• Advanced Verbal Persuasion
• Hallmarks of Distinguished Advocacy
• Negotiation
• Oral Presentations In and Out of the Courtroom (SC)
• Persuasion (SC)

Elective Courses

Numbers in parentheses indicate which academic year(s) the courses were offered, i.e., 2021-22 is coded (22), 2022-23 is coded (23) and 2023-24 is coded (24). (SC) stands for short course and (YR) stands for yearlong.

Advanced Legal Research (22,23,24) Advanced Topics in Federal Courts Seminar (22,23) Advanced Verbal Persuasion (22,23,24) Appellate Practice (22,23,24) Civil Rights Litigation (22,23,24) Class Actions and Aggregate Litigation (22) Conflict of Laws (22,23,24) Criminal Procedure Survey (22,23,24) Drug Product Liability Litigation Seminar (22,23,24) Drug Product Liability Litigation: Principles and Practice (22,23,24) Evidence (22,23,24) Federal Courts (22,23,24) Federal Litigation Practice (22,23,24) Federal Practice and Procedure (SC) (24) Hallmarks of Distinguished Advocacy (22,23,24) International Civil Litigation (22,23) Judicial Opinions (24) Jurisprudence (22) Law Reform and Impact Litigation (SC) (22) Law Reform and Impact Litigation Seminar (23,24) Lawyers, Clerks and Judicial Decisionmaking (23,24) Legislation (22,23,24) Litigation and Public Policy (SC) (23) Litigation Skills and Professional Liability Law (22,23,24) Negotiation (22,23,24) Oral Presentations In and Out of the Courtroom (SC) (22,23,24) Persuasion (SC) (22,23,24) Science and the Courts (SC) (22,23,24) Securities Litigation and Enforcement (22,23,24) Separation of Powers in the Federal Courts Seminar (22,23,24) Title IX: The Law and Policy of Sex Discrimination in Education (SC) (22) Virginia Practice and Procedure (22,23,24)

Appellate Litigation Clinic Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic First Amendment Clinic Innocence Project Clinic Supreme Court Litigation Clinic

Supreme Court Litigation Clinic

The Supreme Court Litigation Clinic introduces third-year students to all aspects of current U.S. Supreme Court practice through live cases. Students research memos and draft briefs and other papers students have prepared for submission to the court. Students study relevant Supreme Court scholarship and the ethics of appellate lawyering, and help identify candidates for Supreme Court review. They draft petitions for certiorari, briefs in opposition, amicus briefs, and/or party merits briefs, and attend mootings and Supreme Court arguments.

Instructors

Xiao Wang , Robert Long , Matthew Etchemandy , Jeremy Marwell

Appellate Litigation Clinic

The Appellate Litigation Clinic allows 12 third-year students to engage in the hands-on practice of appellate litigation through actual cases before various federal circuit courts of appeals. The students are teamed up and assigned to handle primary responsibility for work on at least one appellate case during the course of the year. In addition, the students work together as a small law firm to provide secondary-level assistance to each other. Clinic students identify the issues to be raised on appeal through factual analysis and legal research, prepare opening and reply briefs persuasively advocating for the client’s position on those issues and, in a number of cases, personally present oral argument on the issues to the appellate court. 

Scott Ballenger , Cate Stetson

Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic

Students in this semester-long clinic have the opportunity to work on real-world environmental problems in a variety of venues — legal advocacy before courts, expert testimony before administrative agencies and coalition building directly with the communities impacted by environmental harm. The clinic has represented a diverse array of public-interest clients in recent years, from a community group working to preserve an early 20th-century black schoolhouse, to local governments filing an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the United States.

First Amendment Clinic

This yearlong clinic is supervised by lawyers at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and supported in part by gifts from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression and the Virginia Press Association. In the clinic, students work closely with RCFP lawyers on timely and vital matters involving free speech and press freedom, enabling students to gain practical legal experience on cutting-edge First Amendment issues. Students work as a team in conducting legal research, meeting with clients and co-counsel, and drafting legal memoranda and briefs. Assignments involve both appellate-level and trial-level litigation in both state and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ian C. Kalish , Gabe Rottman , Lin Weeks

Innocence Project Clinic

Students in this yearlong clinic investigate and litigate wrongful convictions of inmates throughout the commonwealth of Virginia. Some of the cases have forensic evidence (usually DNA) that could be tested, and some are non-DNA cases. Preliminary cases are assigned to individual clinic students for factual development and evaluation to determine whether or not the clinic should accept the case. Students work in teams of 3-4 to investigate and litigate the cases that are accepted. Students learn skills in interviewing potential clients and witnesses, general investigation, reviewing case files, collecting records, searching court files and drafting pleadings.

Instructors 

Juliet Hatchett , Jennifer L. Givens

Text about litigation efforts goes here.

The En Banc Institute prepares advocates appearing before an en banc court. 

A moot is a dress rehearsal for advocates, and offers an excellent opportunity for advocates to test their arguments and strategies and receive guidance on judicial process and procedure in advance of argument.

The Appellate Litigation Program offers its moot courts as a service to interested advocates scheduled to appear before an en banc appellate court or the U.S. Supreme Court. Although other law schools have moot programs that focus on Supreme Court practice, UVA’s program is the only one in the country dedicated to en banc arguments.

These advocates practice their arguments before a panel of judges, comprised of UVA Law faculty, alumni and appellate practitioners. These “judges” have clerked at a variety of federal district and circuit courts, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court.

For those interested in participating in the moot program or attending a moot, below are some common questions and answers for reference.

Why focus on en banc cases?

En banc cases often set the law for millions of Americans for many years, given the slim likelihood of certiorari in any given case or subject matter. Moreover, unlike the Supreme Court bar, which is generally replete with repeat players familiar with appellate process and procedure, en banc cases involve practitioners from a variety of backgrounds. The program’s deep network of faculty, alumni and other practitioners helps provide critical assistance to en banc participants.

Do you also moot Supreme Court cases? 

Yes, on a case-by-case basis and depending upon availability. The faculty in the program have mooted more than 60 attorneys preparing to appear before the Supreme Court.

How are moots scheduled?

Moots are scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis. We work with individual counsel to find an amenable time and format (virtual or in-person). For preparation purposes, advocates should contact Xiao Wang ( @email ) at least four weeks in advance of their proposed moot date.

Who are the mooting judges and how can I participate as a judge? 

The moot program include doctrinal and clinical faculty from the University of Virginia School of Law, appellate practitioners within the D.C. and Charlottesville area, alumni of the Appellate Litigation Program and practitioners. Of note, our alumni have clerked the Supreme Court, every single circuit court of appeal, and dozens of state and federal district courts.

If you are a practitioner interested in participating as a judge, please contact Xiao Wang ( @email ).  Moot judges are eligible for CLE credit.

What is the format of a moot?

We are flexible with formatting, but generally we ask a third-year law student, enrolled in one of our clinics, to prepare to stand-in as opposing counsel. This process, we believe, helps simulate the cadence of the actual argument, rather than having an advocate start “cold.”

During the first half of the moot, we will proceed with formal questioning, and keep track of time. The second half of the moot is an informal exchange between the advocate and the mooting judges. In total, each moot lasts between 90 minutes to two hours.

Where are the moots?

We prefer for the moots to be held in Charlottesville, on the UVA Law Grounds. Typically, we will reserve the school’s moot court classroom, which simulates the dimensions of a traditional courtroom.  We are also amenable to a virtual format.

Can you help with travel costs?

Yes. On a case-by-case basis, we may help with travel and lodging to Charlottesville.

Who attends the moots?

Counsel and the acting judges attend the moots, as well as the third-year law student asked to participate as opposing counsel. At the discretion of counsel, we may invite other clinic students to attend and observe a moot.

What is the moot program’s confidentiality policy? 

We have a rule of absolute confidentiality for all matters discussed during the moot.

• Student Organizations

Extramural Moot Court

The Extramural Moot Court team is the official moot court team of the University of Virginia School of Law. The team competes in a variety of moot court competitions across the country in subjects like constitutional law, national security law, labor and employment, criminal procedure, family law, sports law and intellectual property. Participating students learn leadership, brief writing and oral advocacy skills.  

International Tax Practicum/Moot Court 

The International and European Tax Moot Court Team at UVA competes in an annual international tax competition in Belgium. Throughout the year, members prepare both an oral and written advocacy component. The team emphasizes education and skills development. In the fall semester especially, the team focuses on honing advocacy skills, learning how to write and cite briefs for a European audience, and learning basic skills regarding tax treaties. 

Competing students also earn academic credit through the International Tax Practicum course.

Philip C. Jessup International Moot Court Team  

Each year law students compete in the Philip C. Jessup International Moot Court Competition, the largest moot court competition in the world, with over 100 countries and 500 law schools participating. The competition simulates a dispute before the International Court of Justice and participating students gain expertise in both public and private international law. Selection for the Jessup Team is based upon a formal tryout and an interview.

William Minor Lile Moot Court and the Lile Moot Court Board

Second-year students at UVA Law, competing in two-person teams, hone their oral argument skills in the annual William Minor Lile Moot Court Competition. Third-year students participating in the Lile Moot Court Board write the competition's problems and judge the first round. Federal and state judges preside in the semifinal and final rounds. Winners receive a cash prize and their names are inscribed on a plaque located outside the three moot courtrooms in Slaughter Hall.

• Academic Calendar
• J.D. Curriculum
• Current Courses
• Concentrations
• Academic Policies
• Study Abroad
• Graduate Studies (LL.M. and S.J.D.)
• Dual-Degree Programs
• Programs and Centers
• Experiential Learning
• Educating Legal Scholars
• Faculty Scholarship
• The Free Exchange of Ideas at UVA Law
• Admissions Process
• J.D. Application Information
• Virginia Residency
• Online Status Checker
• Make Online Seat Deposit
• Transfer Students
• Brochures and Key Websites
• ABA Required Disclosures
• Diversity, Equity and Belonging
• Admitted Students
• Graduate Studies
• Financial Aid
• Karsh-Dillard Scholarships
• Academic Journals
• Student Government
• The Honor System
• Living in Charlottesville
• Awards, Fellowships and Honors
• Moot Court and Trial Advocacy
• Legal Writing Fellows
• Student Affairs
• Student Records
• Career Development
• Law IT/Computing
• Courts & Commerce Bookstore
• Employment Resources for Students
• Office of Private Practice Staff
• Resources for Private Practice Employers
• Public Service Center Staff
• Funding for Public Service
• Program in Law and Public Service
• Resources for Public Service Employers
• Office of Judicial Clerkships Staff
• The Pro Bono Program
• About the School
• Facts & Statistics
• Consumer Information (ABA Required Disclosures)
• Event Calendar
• Video & Audio
• Subscribe and Connect
• University of Virginia

• Apr 8, 2014

See You in Court: Why Court Visits are a must for Law Students

Being in law school sometimes leaves you feeling a bit removed from what you are actually working towards. Maybe that’s why we love watching legal TV shows like Suits . Although it’s awesome to watch Harvey Specter and Mike Ross do their thing, we often forget that there are plenty of real life cases that we can sit in on at court. Here’s why you should add a few court visits to your diary…

The Benefits

I started attending court on a regular basis when I signed up for mooting . We received a lot of tips about having your own style when presenting to the court, but we were advised to see it in practice. Sitting in on real cases gives you a feel for the language used when addressing the court. You’re also able to get a sense of how the court runs and how lawyers, clients and court staff interact.

I remember waiting for proceedings to begin at the Family Court one day and spotted opposing solicitors having a friendly chat outside. Of course this will not always be the case, but it was good to see that court isn’t always the cutthroat environment that TV shows often depict.

Visiting court is also great preparation for taking subjects like evidence and civil procedure.

Trying to pick which court to visit can be difficult. If you go to the Local/Magistrates Court you will usually be able to see something from start to finish. If you decide to see a trial in the District Court or Supreme Court be wary that they can go on for days.

Having an interest in family law, I decided it would be beneficial to sit in on a parenting dispute that was open to the public. Admittedly, I was a bit underprepared for the allegations of family violence that were made against the husband in this case. While studying family law I was aware that independent children’s lawyers existed, but it was only after seeing one in practice did I realise the importance of the role. The objectivity that the independent children’s lawyer brought to the situation was crucial in the dispute I witnessed.

Of course, not all cases are as emotionally charged as that and there is plenty of scope to sit in on matters relating to whatever area of law interests you and to get a feel for whether it is an area you would like to work in in the future.

If you want to see a particular case, look up the court lists available online to find out where to go and when it’s happening. Or if you’re not too sure about what matter you’d like to see, you can check with court staff to see if there are any interesting matters scheduled for that day.

Before entering the courtroom, turn off your phone or switch it to silent as the last thing you want is to have a judge glaring in your direction! If you are entering a courtroom once a case has already started or you’re exiting early, don’t forget to bow to the judge from the door.

Enjoyed this post? Sign up for the Survive Law weekly newsletter for more.

#court #lawstudents #moot #mooters

Recent Posts

Top 3 Gradual Law Grad Realisations

Top 3 Studying Mistakes to Avoid in the First Week of Uni

Top 3 Methods to Overcome A Lack of Motivation

Comentários

Search this site

School of law menu, school of law.

Annual Oregon Supreme Court Visit

A long-standing tradition of illuminating the legal process..

Each year, the Oregon Supreme Court, hosted by Oregon Law’s top ranked  LRW program , visits Oregon Law to hear oral arguments and engage directly with our students and the broader legal community. The court’s annual visit, which began in 1977, has become a highlight of the law school calendar.

During the visit, the court hears oral arguments in two pending cases before an audience of first-year law students, Lane County Bar members, and the general public. After the proceedings, justices answer questions from the audience. Student questions have touched on judicial approaches to statutory interpretation, career paths, and post-graduate clerkship opportunities. 

After the proceedings, the justices join selected students and Oregon Law faculty for a luncheon in the Knight Law Center.

This more than forty-year tradition continues to afford unrivaled experiential learning and professional development opportunities to our students, our faculty, and the greater community.

Georgetown Law

Earn your law degree in the city where laws are made.

United States Capitol

Imagine earning your law degree a short walk from the U.S. Capitol, Supreme Court and countless global institutions based in Washington, D.C.

The World Bank

The Supreme Court

Georgetown Law students don’t just study the law. In D.C., they experience it.

Washington, D.C., is the nation’s capital, a global hub and a lively metropolis. At Georgetown Law, students learn the law in the place where laws are made.

Facts & Stats

Each year, Georgetown Law welcomes graduate students from more than 70 countries, representing approximately 300 law schools worldwide.

Supreme Court cases that were mooted at Georgetown in 2019-20.

Number of students who participate in 19 different clinics.

Related News

POSTED 3.14.2024

POSTED 3.7.2024

POSTED 1.2.2024

For the cover feature of our latest issue of Georgetown Law Magazine, we talked to members of our faculty and to alumni to learn how lawyers and legal educators are starting to engage with emerging artificial intelligence technologies.

Mary McCord,

Associated Press

“This all came out of Wisconsin and expanded to other states,” said McCord, who helped negotiate the settlement. “That was a significant part of the narrative that led to the violence on Jan 6.” Continue Reading

"We will soon see AI models that do not live up to our legal and societal ideals in many other ways, such as large language models that spout misinformation, deep fake models used to terrorize women, and facial recognition models that destroy privacy." Continue Reading

Human Rights

During the 2022-23 school year, students in the Human Rights Advocacy in Action Practicum partnered with Nadia's Initiative, an organization founded by 2018 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Nadia Murad, a survivor of the Islamic State’s genocidal attack on the Yazidi community of northwestern Iraq. In the course of their work developing possible pathways to justice for Yazidis, they traveled to Erbil, Iraq and to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

In this story

HRI Executive Director Elisa Massimino (pictured), HRI Deputy Director Michelle Liu, L'13, L'20, HRI Dash-Muse Senior Teaching Fellow Catherine Cooper, Alexis Shanes, L'24, Nicolas Friedlich, L'24

Public Service

White House National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi, L’15, looks back on his student days and shares his advice for future lawyers interested in environmental law and public service.

Prof. Anthony Cook (pictured), Prof. J. Peter Byrne, Ali Zaidi, L’15

Our cover story focuses on how law schools and lawyers are beginning to engage with artificial intelligence (AI). How, if at all, should students use generative AI platforms in their coursework? Where are our faculty finding interesting areas of scholarship to pursue when it comes to these technologies? What do our alumni in law firms, tech companies and nonprofits think about AI?

• Letters to the Editor
• Suggest a Story Idea
• Join Our Team
• Subscriptions

Students, outside groups protest supreme court justices' campus visit

As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett was preparing to speak in Eck Hall of Law Tuesday, approximately 100 protestors assembled by campus’s main entrance to express disappointment that the University invited Israel Supreme Court Justice Alex Stein to participate in a conversation with Barrett, who was appointed to the highest court in the nation 23 years after graduating first in her class at Notre Dame Law School.

The conversation between the justices in the McCartan Courtroom was closed to the media and those outside the law school community. The closed nature of the event did not prevent outrage.

In an open letter to the law school in the Irish Radical Saturday, more than a dozen local groups including Student Voices for Palestine, Michiana Friends of Palestine and Black Lives Matter South Bend said Notre Dame should be using its platform to advocate for the protection of all innocent life — not give a voice to an “oppressive” government that is currently being tried by the United Nations for war crimes.

The open letter argued that since the State of Israel’s founding in 1948, the country’s judicial system has upheld discriminatory laws that directly enforce an “apartheid system” on Palestinians. It added that Stein has “directly facilitated” the forcible transfer of indigenous Palestinians in occupied territory to make way for Jewish settlements, such as Khan al-Ahmar and Masafer Yatta.

“Alex Stein’s presence on campus in light of the ongoing genocide and violence in Palestine being enacted by the Israeli government for whom he serves is extremely inappropriate,” the letter said.

In addition to chanting that there will not be peace in the Holy Land until justice is achieved, protestors said that Palestine will be free “from the river to the sea” and called on Yemen to make them proud and “turn another ship around.”

The protest began at 11:30 a.m., an hour before Barrett and Stein took the stage in the law school. Protestors marched along Angela Boulevard between Notre Dame Avenue and Eddy Street carrying signs, beating drums and passing out black N95s and ponchos.

Vint Thawra, a protester with Michiana Friends of Palestine, said Notre Dame needed to be held accountable for the political stances it makes explicitly and implicitly.

“Notre Dame can constantly make these grand gestures like Walk the Walk Week, where they’re paying homage to their grand civil rights legacy and all of that,” Thawra said. “But in reality, they’re holding job fairs with people like Lockheed Martin. They’re inviting an architect of apartheid, Alex Stein, to have a conversation with the U.S. Supreme Court justice. And to me, that is only an explicit approval of what’s going on overseas.”

Graduate student Seham Kafafi, who is involved with Student Voices for Palestine, said the club needed to rely on outside local groups to speak up about Palestine.

“There has been some silencing going on on campus,” Kafafi said. “Student Voices for Palestine wanted to do an information display board next to the law school, and they wouldn’t let us.”

According to an Associated Press report , the Health Ministry in the Gaza Strip said Sunday that the Palestinian death toll from the war between Israel and Hamas has soared past 25,000. Kafafi said people in Gaze were dying “systematically” and that genocide was taking place.

“Israel has committed untargeted airstrikes and bombings of civilians, including women and children,” Kafafi said. “The medical system has fallen apart. They’re bombing universities, refugee camps, hospitals — you name it.”

Law student Turner Koch, who attended the conversation between the justices, said Barrett and Stein concentrated on legal issues, avoiding controversial topics like the Israel-Hamas war.

“It focused a lot just on issues of statutory interpretation,” Koch said. “It was an awful lot right all at once. We opened with questions around originalism versus purposivism — big questions about how courts should interpret the law. But also they dove into what makes a good judge.”

Stein discussed “holes” in Israel's constitution that need to be patched and compared the founding of the United States with the founding of Israel 75 years ago, Koch added.

Barrett taught law student Nate Wertjes’ legislation and regulation class on Monday.

“She primarily taught statutory interpretation when she was a professor here, and so we were really honored to have her come and teach through the material,” Wertjes said. “It’s clear that she was a wonderful professor while she was here.”

Wertjes added that he thought Notre Dame’s decision to invite Barrett and Stein to campus shows that the University is committed to free speech and free inquiry.

“It’s one of the reasons why I’m proud to be a law student here because even if there are protesters out on the street, Notre Dame is willing to host them,” he said. “So I think that is a good thing.”

Professors convene to discuss human health and climate change

Senate fills positions for end of term, next year

Swiss ambassador to the US, filmmaker and genocide survivor discuss Rwandan genocide

The long road to Grand Rapids

University sets record low acceptance rate for the class of 2028

Fisher senior completes triathlon to raise awareness for Regatta

The Driver Era to perform at annual SUB concert

30 years later, Pink Floyd’s ‘The Division Bell’ rings true

Bowen Law Student Attends Distinguished Lecture and Discussion with Supreme Court Justice

The trip, arranged by the Dominican Bar Association, benefited more than 80 law students from 13 different law schools.

“As an affinity bar association, we recognize the important role we play in creating meaningful and prestigious educational experiences for our students,” the association said in an Instagram post. “As the first Latina and third woman to serve on the [United States] Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor serves as a beacon of hope and source of inspiration for our students and general membership.”

Students who attended were welcomed to the United States Supreme Court where they received a distinguished lecture by a staff member, followed by a Q&A session with Justice Sotomayor. Afterwards, the students received a tour of the court’s chambers, and later participated in a discussion with the Supreme Court Justice.

“The biggest thing that I learned from Justice Sotomayor is that you shouldn’t disqualify yourself from anything,” Wallace said. “She was very honest with us, sharing that she didn’t have the expectations or goals of being a supreme court justice when she was in high school or college, but she kept pushing herself and never looked at something and thought she couldn’t do it, and I think that’s an important skill to learn and mental muscle to develop.”

Wallace described the experience as surreal, expressing that she hopes it’s the first of many similar opportunities for Bowen students.

“The experience was almost surreal,” Wallace said. “As a first generation American and a first-generation law student studying in Arkansas, opportunities like this can often feel out of reach. I was the only person who attended who was not from the Tri-State area. In fact, I’m the only person who attended from the Southern region, so it was very important to me to be able to attend and represent not only the south, but Arkansas, and all communities that I’m apart of,” said Wallace. “I hope this is the first of many trips of its kind for Bowen’s students.”

Wallace’s trip was sponsored by two of Arkansas’ largest and most prominent law firms and longtime supporters of Bowen, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP and Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, PLLC.

“Friday and Mitchell have been longtime, reliable supporters of LALSA,” Wallace said. “With their support, in addition to experiences like this, we’ve been able to send our students to conferences all over the country, participate in mock-trial competitions, and award the highest number of scholarships than any other Bowen student organization each year. We wouldn’t be able to do any of this without their support.”

Comments are closed.

• William H. Bowen School of Law
• 1201 McMath Avenue Little Rock , AR 72202
• Phone: 501-916-5400
• More contact information
• Academic Calendar
• Grades & Class Rank
• Staff & Contact Information
• Faculty Members
• ABA Required Disclosures
• Law Library

Bowen Students

• Blackboard / myUALR

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

You're a law student, but when did you last visit a courtroom?

Whether you’re hoping for a law career or just want to improve the quality of your essays, going to court can be worthwhile

• Read more stories about studying law

When you spend your days leafing through countless textbooks, it’s easy to forget that there’s more to the law than lengthy judgments and academic viewpoints.

Those cases you read – because of course, you do actually read them – are about things that happened to real people, and there are few better things you can do as a student than going to court and watching the law in action.

What’s useful about going to court?

If you’re interested in a legal career but aren’t sure of the exact path you wish to take, time spend in court can help. “It can be informative when deciding whether to practice in a contentious or non-contentious area of law, and whether to pursue a career in criminal or civil litigation,” says Linda Jacobs, a barrister at Cloisters.

But it’s not just useful for narrowing down your career options. Watching real cases unfold can shed light on why the law is the way it is, improving your approach to academic work.

Richard Williams, access officer for the University of Cambridge’s law faculty, says: “An understanding of the way the courts work is important to the study of law and to all aspects of legal practice. “Combined with more detailed study of the legal system, court visits can help inform this understanding.”

Catherine Dance, a law student at the University of Oxford, has attended two court cases in the Midlands – one on historical sex abuse and another on conspiracy to import and supply drugs and taking a vehicle without consent. “It made me think a bit more about practical applications of the things we were studying, rather than just the theory,” she says, adding that it has enabled her to make more well-rounded critical arguments about statutes and precedents.

Holly Anderson, who also studies law at Oxford, agrees that going to court has improved the quality of her legal arguments – both orally and in written work. During a marshalling placement last summer, she watched a complicated sexual offences trial play out at Oxford Crown Court. “Not only do you get to experience the practical side of law, which can sometimes be lost when studying the subject as an academic discipline, you also get to observe barristers presenting legal argument,” she says.

It can also be valuable to see the emotional impact of the law for yourself, says Sharzad Shini, an LPC student at Kaplan Law School. She sat in on a case at Cambridge Magistrates’ Court in which a man with previous convictions was being sentenced for a driving-related offence.

“While I was listening to the judges deliver their verdict, I was also observing the accused and how upset and anxious he was. The magistrates had to reassure him and tell him to sit down,” says Shini. “It’s this personal interaction and the impact on the accused that you can’t really appreciate inside a classroom.”

What if I want to be a corporate solicitor?

Going to court isn’t only useful for prospective barristers. Herbert Smith Freehills, for example, takes all its trainees – even those on vacation schemes – to the High Court to help them understand how their work impacts what happens in court.

There’s a lot to observe, says Rupert Lewis, a disputes partner at the firm, including how solicitors interact with counsel, gather evidence, brief experts, proof witnesses, identify winning points and present winning arguments.

Mark Bardell, also a corporate partner at Herbert Smith Freehills, works in non-contentious mergers and acquisitions, much of which is aimed at avoiding disputes. He also stresses the importance of understanding how things would play out if they did reach court. He likens it to football: “You can only have a good defence if you can respond to – and anticipate – the likely attacks.”

Where should I go and what should I see?

Jacobs recommends sitting through a range of cases: “I encourage students to attend all levels of court and a wide variety of forums – from the supreme court to the county courts, criminal trials in the crown court and magistrates court, tribunals, such as the employment tribunal, and the coroner’s court.”

Wherever you go, get there for the start. That way you’ll see the charges being read and the barristers making their opening statements. Most court cases are public proceedings, so you’ll be allowed to watch for free while the public gallery is open. There’s no need to book, but there may be some unusual rules, so be prepared. London is the best place to watch big cases play out.

What else do I need to know?

• If it’s a big case at a major court that’s getting a lot of media coverage, arrive a few hours before it’s due to start. You’ll be competing for a place with the journalists who didn’t get into the press gallery and the ever-surprising number of people who turn up for fun.
• It can be a slog, so bring some form of entertainment, but check the rules. At the Old Bailey, for example, you’re not allowed anything electronic.If you find yourself lugging around possessions, nearby shops will often look after your stuff for a small fee. At the Old Bailey, the estate agents and corner shops on nearby Newgate Street which will look after bags and phones for the day.
• After a brief pat down, you’re in. Remember to bow to the crown as you enter, and stand up when the judge comes in. You’re free to leave at any time and don’t be afraid to ask for help. The court users are always on hand to offer assistance.

Keep up with the latest on Guardian Students: follow us on Twitter at @GdnStudents – and become a member to receive exclusive benefits and our weekly newsletter

• Studying law
• Guardian Students
• Higher education

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

Supreme Court program allows students to learn about the judicial process

This year is the sixtieth anniversary of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. President John F. Kennedy proposed this legislation in 1963, but he was assassinated before its enactment. The legislation became a priority of his successor, President Lyndon Johnson, who signed it into law one year later. In 1969, Governor David Cargo signed House Bill 142 and thereby enacted the New Mexico Human Rights Act. This state law protecting individuals from discrimination is the subject of our Court’s fourth annual “Rule of Law” program. The goal of the program is to educate middle school, high school, and college students on the judiciary’s role in our democracy and how the rule of law secures a just and civil society. In previous years, we held oral argument in Las Cruces and Española. This year we will hold argument at Smith Brasher Hall at Central New Mexico Community College (CNM) in Albuquerque on Monday, April 29, 2024, at 10 a.m.

The matter before the Court is Johnson v. Board of Education for Albuquerque Public Schools et. al.. Here, a student brought an action under the New Mexico Human Rights Act, alleging her teacher’s conduct during a class on Halloween violated her protected rights. The case raises the important legal question of whether a public secondary school is a “public accommodation” under the New Mexico Human Rights Act and, therefore, subject to a lawsuit. The briefs and oral advocacy reveal lessons about the New Mexico Human Rights Act and the way a judge interprets the words in a statute that gives meaning to the intent of the legislature. Observing live courtroom advocacy also teaches students that there are reasonable positions on both sides of an issue and that civil discourse, through rational thought, careful deliberation, and adherence to the rule of law, are the most effective means of resolving disputes like the one before the Court in April.

Our Court staff provides written materials for students and teachers to review ahead of time. The materials summarize the issues in the case and include a lesson plan and background on federal and state civil rights legislation. After argument, while the Court deliberates, attorneys for the parties in the case will remain in the courtroom to answer questions. We ask the students to think deeply and identify the principles of constitutional government raised by the advocates and Court. We explore how civil debate, rather than threats or rancor, creates a better environment for thought and deliberation. Those unable to attend the oral argument in person can watch a live stream of the proceeding. Real-time Spanish translation will be provided. Additionally, members of the Court are committed to visiting as many schools as our schedule permits. If students wish to learn more about the judicial process and our role in the democratic system, you may request that a Justice meet with your class to discuss the case, either in person or virtually.

This initiative fosters a deeper appreciation for the legal system that protects our rights. Please join us in advancing civic education. If your school is interested in attending, contact Tammy Mitchell, at [email protected] to learn more.  

Biden sets up student loan borrowers for disappointment and hardship

When the grace period for student loans expires in september, those unprepared or unable to resume their payments will face a drop in credit scores, docked wages and lost benefits..

Millions of student loan borrowers will be in for a rude awakening in a few months.

Since student loan payments restarted last fall, there's been a temporary safety net in place to shield Americans from the fallout of missed or partial payments. But when this grace period expires in September , those unprepared or unable to resume their payments will face a drop in credit scores, docked wages and lost benefits.

Even if you or your children are among those with student loans, you might not have seen this coming. Because of the Biden administration’s lack of clarity surrounding student loans, families have been left in the dark and are now scrambling for answers, lacking guidance from those who created this policy mess in the first place.

As a parent, watching this unfold is frustrating. The Biden administration has left our kids to navigate a confusing landscape with little assistance, essentially setting them up for failure.

After student loan payments restarted in October, nearly  40% of borrowers  had not made a single payment by mid-November. Those withholding payments might have done so believing President Joe Biden's now-overturned loan forgiveness plan would come to their rescue.

Inflation is still bad. It's both Trump and Biden's fault. Who will fix it?

Supreme Court struck down Biden's loan forgiveness plan

Last year, the Supreme Court decisively rejected Biden's blanket student loan forgiveness plan in the case of Biden v. Nebraska. Unsurprisingly, the court found that the administration had overstepped its authority, ruling that the secretary of Education can’t “rewrite” existing law “from the ground up.”

These changes require congressional approval.

Despite the ruling, Biden continued to tout his intentions to implement loan forgiveness, adding to the confusion and unintentionally encouraging borrowers to withhold payments. After all, if the entire outstanding balance of your loan will be forgiven eventually, why struggle to make the monthly payments now?

This week, Biden gave a preview of his latest loan forgiveness scheme , one that could erase or reduce debt for millions of Americans but also would once again attempt to bypass Congress.

It seems as though the president falsely believes he had the power to sidestep the law and implement loan forgiveness around the courts. In so doing, he has misled millions of students, parents and borrowers into believing they would never have to make another payment.

An entitled generation: Gen Z wants student loan forgiveness without any accountability. It doesn't work that way.

Making matters worse, the Biden administration has yet to clearly communicate the consequences of defaulting on student loans.

Missing student loan payments can have serious consequences

For starters, missing payments can significantly damage borrowers' credit scores, making it more challenging to get credit cards, car loans or even rent an apartment. Rebuilding credit after these setbacks can take years.

Borrowers who miss payments and default on their student loans are hit with the full balance and accrued interest  all at once. Defaulters also lose access to future federal student aid and risk having their paychecks and tax refunds taken away.

On top of that, they could end up dealing with legal issues and collection agencies, which add more costs and fees. In addition to all of these consequences, defaulting might prevent individuals from buying or selling real estate, locking them out of key financial milestones.

These scenarios would not only be a personal catastrophe for individual borrowers, but also significantly threaten our economy as a whole. 

As parents, we do everything we can to prepare our children for a future on solid financial ground, but the mixed messages and lack of clear guidance from the Biden administration are making this difficult task even harder. It's not just about avoiding default; it's about ensuring our children have the tools and knowledge to manage their finances responsibly in the long term.

The Biden administration must offer clarity, support and actionable advice to borrowers as we approach the end of this grace period. The financial future of our children, and the economic future of our nation, depend on it.

Nicole Neily is founder and president of Parents Defending Education .

Please use a recommended browser or install Google Chrome Frame to best experience this site.

• Quick Links
• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Alumni & Friends
• Employers & Legal Community
• Why Washburn Law?
• Meet our Faculty
• Practical experience
• October 2023 News
• Kansas Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments at Washburn Law on Nov. 3

Washburn Law Partners with Kansas Supreme Court to Offer Unique Opportunity for Students

Washburn University School of Law is thrilled to announce a partnership with the Kansas Supreme Court, offering a unique opportunity for law students and the public to witness live court proceedings. This collaboration highlights Washburn’s commitment to providing its students with invaluable real-world experiences and fostering a deeper understanding of the judicial process, as well as the Kansas Supreme Court’s intention of making the court more accessible to everyone.

On November 3, 2023, the Kansas Supreme Court will convene in the Heath Family Appellate Courtroom, marking a historic moment in legal education in Kansas. This event offers students and members of the public a rare opportunity to observe the Court in action, gaining insights into the workings of the highest court in the state.

The focal point of this partnership is the brand-new Heath Family Appellate Courtroom, a state-of-the-art facility within the newly constructed Washburn Law building. Unlike its predecessor, the Heath Family Appellate Courtroom boasts ample seating capacity on its bench to accommodate all the esteemed justices of the Kansas Supreme Court. This ensures that observers can witness the Court's docket proceedings firsthand, further enhancing the educational experience offered by Washburn Law.

"We’re excited to partner with the Kansas Supreme Court to bring this extraordinary opportunity to our students and the broader legal community," said Jeffrey Jackson, Interim Dean of Washburn University School of Law. "The Heath Family Appellate Courtroom was designed to promote legal education and collaboration, and hosting the Kansas Supreme Court exemplifies our commitment to excellence in legal education."

The docket for the November 3, 2023 session is available here , allowing attendees with a chance to review the cases and issues that the Court will address during the session. This transparency ensures that attendees can fully engage with the proceedings and enrich their understanding of the legal process.

About the Supreme Court Travel Dockets

Twice a year, the Supreme Court visits a Kansas community to conduct court in a public space, most often a school. Since the outreach program started in 2011, the court has visited 21 communities between Colby and Kansas City. The visit to the Washburn University School of Law is on top of that outreach program.

Note to media : Reporters who plan to cover oral arguments need to be familiar with  Supreme Court Rule 1001: Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings,  which prohibits using electronic recording devices during proceedings. If you plan to be in the courtroom when a case is heard, notify Lisa Taylor at  [email protected]  by noon November 2. If you want to use a camera, video camera, or audio recording device, it must be approved by the chief justice in advance of the oral argument.

• Login (for Supreme Court officials only)
• Calender SCI

Guided tour of "Supreme Court Of India"

Visiting and sight-seeing protocol:.

Being the highest legal authority of the nation, it is imperative that visitors maintain proper decorum commensurate with the dignity of the esteemed establishment. Guests are expected to adhere to the following instructions:

• A thorough security scan will be conducted at entry point. Visitors will be required to walk through metal detectors and their personal items will be scrutinized through the x-ray machine.
• Explore the grounds without creating a commotion to retain the operational harmony of nearby offices.
• As stated before, photography and filming is strictly forbidden on the Supreme Court grounds.
• Meals, snacks and beverages may only be consumed in the canteen area.
• Smoking is stringently denied inside the building.
• Physical contact is not permitted with any work of art such as paintings, portraits, relics or any other exhibit.
• Supreme Court Registry reserves the right to approve/ reject the permission to visit the Supreme Court.

GUIDED TOUR

The Supreme Court of India is open to the general public from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM every Saturday except on declared holidays. This is a great opportunity to gain inside access to the grand interiors of the Supreme Court building and admire the majestic structure in its full glory. Pre-planned escorted visits can be arranged, subject to online booking made in advance. The visitors will be accompanied throughout the premises and introduced to parts of historical importance. They will also get a chance to witness the court rooms.

Frequently Asked Questions:

What is the duration of a typical tour around the supreme court and what can one expect to see.

Sightseeing across the grounds usually takes an hour. Visitors are ushered through the majestic courtrooms. They also get a glimpse inside the grandiose Judges' library where entry on other days is particularly restricted. The excursion ends with a tour of the Supreme Court museum.

An official of the Court will be assigned as your tour guide who will elaborate upon the structure of the Indian legal system yet keep you engaged with intriguing examples of decided cases and the historical significance behind the architecture of the building. A short film will be shown to culminate the educational experience.

How often are these guided visits organized?

Every Saturday, two tours can be arranged that commence at the following times:

How many people are accommodated during a tour?

A group may contain up to 40 people per trip. Online pre-booking is mandatory to reserve a spot.

Due to constraints upon the availability of staff and resources, we cannot assure a tour if less than five individuals pre-book on any given day.

How do I ensure booking arrangements?

Kindly go to the "Registration" tab under the link "Guided Tour" on the official website of the Supreme Court of India and fill the short online form to confirm reservation. Online booking is subject to confirmation sent through SMS/ email after registration.

How much fee is charged for the guided tour?

No fee is charged for a tour of the Supreme Court, but absolute compliance with the rules and regulations is expected from all visitors.

Is there any arrangement for deposit of bags/ luggage etc.?

There is no provision to submit clothes, bags etc. for safekeeping. To avoid inconvenience, it would be best to show up at the Court carrying minimum or no baggage. All visitors will be subjected to a security search upon arrival.

Are the visitors allowed to carry a camera or mobile phone inside the premises?

Photography is not allowed during a guided tour and visitors are forbidden from using a camera or cellphone while touring the premises.

Where should the visitors report for the guided tour?

The visitors should report at P.R.O. office through Gate D for the guided tour half an hour before the slot time, so that the guided tour can start at the time scheduled, after the security checks etc.

What are the prohibited items?

Eatables, Pan, Gutka, Mobile, Cameras, Bagpacks are not allowed during the guided tour.

Where any enquiry can be asked?

For any enquiry, kindly email us at [email protected] or alternately call us on our guided tours helpline number 011 23116334 .

Essential requirement for all visitors:

A visitor must have a printout of the Electronic Registration Slip (ERS) and should duly carry the Original Identity Card as explained in the registration form. The foreign national must carry their original passport along with the Electronic Registration Slip.

Tour Photographs:

Group photo of visitors will be available in gallery at "Tour Photographs" on the same day evening.

Disclaimer: Neither e-Courts division of NIC nor Supreme Court is responsible for any inadvertent error that may have crept in the Information being published on NET.

Advertisement

Supported by

What to Know About Biden’s New Student Debt Relief Plan

The proposal would affect nearly 30 million people and would target groups that have had hardships in repaying their loans.

• Share full article

Biden Announces New Plan for Student Debt Relief

President biden announced a large-scale effort to help pay off federal student loans for more than 20 million borrowers..

Today, I’m proud to announce five major actions to continue to relieve student debt for more than 30 million Americans since I started my administration. And starting this fall, we plan to deliver up to $20,000 in interest relief to over 20 million borrowers and full forgiveness for millions more. [applause] I will never stop to deliver student debt relief and hardworking Americans. And it’s only in the interest of America that we do it. And again, it’s for the good of our economy that’s growing stronger and stronger, and it is, by freeing millions of Americans from this crushing debt of student debt. It means they can finally get on with their lives instead of being put — their lives being put on hold.

By Erica L. Green

Reporting from Washington

President Biden released details on Monday of his new student loan debt forgiveness plan for nearly 30 million borrowers.

The proposal still needs to be finalized and will have to withstand expected legal challenges, like the ones that doomed Mr. Biden’s first attempt to wipe out student debt on a large scale last year.

Biden administration officials said they could begin handing out some of the debt relief — including the canceling of up to $20,000 in interest — as soon as this fall if the new effort moves forward after the required, monthslong comment period.

Here’s what is known so far about the program:

Who would benefit from the new plan?

The plan would reduce payments for 25 million borrowers and erase all debt for more than four million Americans. Altogether, 10 million borrowers would see debt relief of $5,000 or more, officials said.

The groups affected include:

— Borrowers whose loan balances have ballooned because of interest would have up to $20,000 of their interest balance canceled. The plan would waive the entire interest balance for borrowers considered “low- and middle-income” who are enrolled in the administration’s income-driven repayment plans.

The interest forgiveness would be a one-time benefit, but would be the largest relief valve in the plan. The administration estimates that of the 25 million borrowers that could see relief under this waiver, 23 million would see their entire interest balance wiped out.

— Borrowers who are eligible for, but have not yet applied for, loan forgiveness under existing programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness or the administration’s new repayment program, called SAVE, would have their debts automatically canceled.

— Borrowers with undergraduate student debt who started repaying their loans more than 20 years ago, and graduate students who started paying their debt 25 or more years ago, would have their debts canceled.

— Borrowers who enrolled in programs or colleges that lost federal funding because they cheated or defrauded students would have their debts waived. Students who attended institutions or programs that left them with mounds of debt but bleak earning or job prospects would also be eligible for relief.

— Borrowers who are experiencing “hardship” paying back their loans because of medical or child care costs would also be eligible for some type of relief. The administration has not yet determined how these borrowers would be identified, but is considering automatic forgiveness for those at risk of defaulting.

How is this different from the last plan?

Mr. Biden initially tried to grant $400 billion in debt relief for 40 million borrowers by using the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, or HEROES Act, which the administration argued allowed the government to waive student debt during a national emergency like the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Supreme Court blocked that move , saying that Mr. Biden had exceeded his authority.

The new plan would forgive some or all loan debt for nearly 30 million borrowers under the Higher Education Act, the federal law that regulates student loan and grant programs. By targeting specific groups of borrowers — instead of offering broad loan forgiveness — the administration believes it can act within the narrower confines of that law.

The Biden administration said lawyers for the White House and the Education Department studied last year’s Supreme Court ruling and designed the new program to make sure it did not violate the principles laid out by the justices.

Still, there could be questions about whether the borrowers under the latest plan would be considered “limited,” as the Supreme Court said the Higher Education Act requires, or whether the administration again overstepped its authority.

What’s the timeline?

The new plan still needs to be published in the Federal Register, which then will start a monthslong public comment period. Administration officials have said they hoped some of the provisions would begin going into effect in “early fall.”

That could leave the debt relief plan unresolved as voters go to the polls in November to choose between Mr. Biden and former President Donald J. Trump.

But Biden campaign officials hope the latest effort will help rally voters who were sorely disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision last year.

Erica L. Green is a White House correspondent, covering President Biden and his administration. More about Erica L. Green

Our Coverage of the 2024 Election

Presidential Race

Days after saying that abortion policies should be left to the states , Donald Trump criticized an Arizona court ruling for upholding an 1864 law that banned nearly all abortions and said that he would not sign a national ban if elected .

A closely watched measure of inflation remained stronger than expected in March , dealing a political blow to President Biden , who has been banking on cooling inflation to lift his re-election prospects.

Trump once again criticized Jews who back Democratic candidates , saying that “any Jewish person that votes for a Democrat or votes for Biden should have their head examined.”

Trump’s penchant for bending the truth has been well documented, but a close study of how he does so reveals a kind of technique to his dishonesty .

Primaries in three Mid-Atlantic House districts will test whether the battle cry of “save democracy” will be enough  even for Democratic voters who have many other concerns.

In Arizona’s crucial Senate race, Ruben Gallego, who has long embraced his progressive background, is striking a moderate tone .

Allies of Trump are discussing ways to elevate third-party candidates  in battleground states to divert votes away from Biden.

US Supreme Court Rejects Transgender Student Bathroom Case

T he U.S. Supreme Court is upholding the ruling of a federal court of appeals about transgender students using bathrooms that align with their gender identity. 

Because of this ruling, the law now permits transgender students to use restrooms that fit with their gender identity, even if it does not align with their biological anatomy. 

A federal court of appeals passed the ruling last week after the submission of an appeal to the initial judgment by an Indiana school district. 

A school board in the Indiana school district refuses to allow one of their middle school students access to the boys’ restroom. The student’s family then filed a lawsuit against the school district for an infringement on their child’s rights. 

ALSO READ: Loudoun County Students Protest Against Bathroom and Locker Room Policy

An appeals court would later overturn the ban and insist that authorities of the school concerned allow the student to use the restroom that aligns with their gender identity. However, the school board would not sit still as they decided to approach the Supreme Court for an appeal. 

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is telling off the school board and asking them to reinstate the student to their preferred restroom in the school facility. 

The case file only identifies the said student as A.C. According to A.C.’s mother, the child was born with female anatomy. However, at age 8, A.C. was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and had to undergo gender-specific care. Eventually, A.C. received treatment with puberty blockers, and legal changes were also made to his identification documents in consonance with his transition. 

However, upon resuming at John R. Wooden Middle School, A.C.’s parents requested their child to use the boy’s bathroom. The request was escalated to the school board in charge of the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville. They outrightly turned down the request. 

POLL — Is Climate Change a Major Threat That Requires Immediate Policy Action?

Instead, the District board provided A.C.’s family with two options. One, he could use the girls’s bathroom, or two, he could proceed to the single-user restroom at the school’s health office. The latter option is as good as subtly asking A.C. to report sick each time he needs to use the bathroom. 

This arrangement did not go down well with A.C.’s mother. Besides, she claims that the discrimination left her child sad, humiliated, and distraught. In the long run, the discrimination affected A.C.’s academic performance. 

The eventual ruling of the Supreme Court on the case revolves around the 1972 federal civil rights law. According to the law, schools must not discriminate against anyone in their jurisdiction based on their sex. 

ALSO READ: Authorities Initiate an Investigation after Transgender was Found Bathing with High School Girls in Wisconsin

However, Martinsville officials tried to emphasize the specifics of the 1972 law, which allows schools to designate bathrooms using the biological sex of students. That portion of the law is called Title IX. 

However, the Supreme Court adopted the precedence of a previous ruling on the violation of transgender workers’ rights. The ruling affirms that any form of discrimination against transgender workers is similar to job discrimination based on sex.

You Might Also Like:

Seattle Mom Accuses Teacher of Telling Students It’s “Offensive” To Identify As Straight

Zuckerberg to Face Deposition in Texas Over Meta Facial Scanning

Dozens Storm Florida School Board Meeting to Demand the Resignation of Bridget Ziegler Amid Sex Scandal

U.S. Air Force Officer Madison Marsh Wins 2024 Miss America Pageant

Chicago Mayor Evades Questions About Tax Raises to Address Migrant Crisis

Arizona Republicans distance themselves from state Supreme Court ruling on abortion

Hours after the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a near-total ban on abort i on i s enforceable , numerous Arizona Republicans who previously celebrated the end of federal protections for the procedure sought political cover by distancing themselves from the ruling.

Republicans in the state issued a wave of statements in opposition to Tuesday's ruling, which came a day after former President Donald Trump said that abortion laws should be decided by states .

Arizona Senate candidate Kari Lake, who two years ago called the 1864 statute "a great law," s aid Tuesday that it was "out of step with Arizonans.”

"I oppose today’s ruling," she said, while also adding, "I wholeheartedly agree with President Trump — this is a very personal issue that should be determined by each individual state and her people."

Trump has frequently boasted that he is responsible for the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022. More than a dozen states have imposed abortion bans or no longer have facilities where abortions can be obtained since the Supreme Court eliminated federal protections in 2022.

Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., who in 2021 co-sponsored the  Life at Conception Act , which declared the right to life at "the moment of fertilization," also voiced disapproval of the ruling, saying abortion "should be decided by Arizonans, not legislated from the bench."

In 2022, Schweikert wrote on X that he was "pleased" with the fall of Roe v. Wade.

Fellow Arizona Republican Rep. Juan Ciscomani s a id that Tuesday's ruling was “a disaster for women and providers” and that the Civil War-era law was “archaic.”

Schweikert and Ciscomani are locked in competitive races for re-election that the nonpartisan Cook Political Report has labeled Republican toss - ups .

The campaign arm of House Democrats said Schweikert and Ciscomani "are hell-bent on controlling women and bringing this country backwards."

"Voters know that Juan Ciscomani and David Schweikert have been working overtime to restrict access to abortion care," Lauryn Fanguen, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in a statement Tuesday. "Whether it’s voting to restrict medication abortion or co-sponsoring a nationwide abortion ban, time and time again Ciscomani and Schweikert have made it clear that they will side with anti-abortion zealots over Arizona women."

Republican legislators also blasted the high court's ruling.

State Rep. T.J. Shope called the ruling "disappointing to say the least," adding that he would work to repeal the law in favor of a 15-week abortion law then-Gov. Doug Ducey signed two years ago.

Ducey, a Republican, said the ruling was "not the outcome I would have preferred."

The  law  upheld by the state Supreme Court outlaws abortion from the moment of conception but includes an exception to save the woman’s life. The ruling effectively undoes a lower court’s ruling that the recent 15-week ban from 2022 superseded the 1864 law.

State Rep. Matt Gress, who also backed a 15-week abortion ban, condemned the ruling, saying it “cannot stand.”

“I cannot and will not condemn women, especially the victims of rape and incest, to be forced to carry their pregnancy to term," Gress said, calling on Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma to bring a measure to the floor to repeal the ban “and restore modern-day protections for Arizona women."

Petersen and Toma — both Republicans — said in a joint statement that they were looking over the court's ruling.

"We will be closely reviewing the court’s ruling, talking to our members, and listening to our constituents to determine the best course of action for the legislature," the statement said.

Reached for comment, a spokesperson for Arizona Senate Republicans did not say whether they would take up a repeal effort.

Zoë Richards is the evening politics reporter for NBC News.

What to know about Biden’s new student loan forgiveness plan

President Biden is forging a new path to reduce or eliminate federal student loan balances for tens of millions of borrowers, holding firm to a campaign promise to ease the burden of college debt.

The proposed forgiveness plan announced Monday is an alternative to the sweeping $400 billion debt relief program that Biden announced in 2022 and the Supreme Court blocked last summer. Since that court defeat, the Biden administration has worked through a negotiated rulemaking process to craft a regulation that achieves large-scale debt cancellation, albeit with a much more targeted approach than the last plan.

The Education Department will release a draft rule on the forgiveness plan to solicit public comment in the coming months. But the Biden administration is releasing more details of how the proposal will accomplish the president’s goal of sweeping debt reduction.

Here’s what we know.

What does Biden’s student loan relief plan do?

The new plan will expand federal student loan relief to several categories of borrowers. It will eliminate up to $20,000 in accrued interest for borrowers who owe far more than they originally borrowed because of unpaid interest. Borrowers could get all of their interest wiped away if they are enrolled in an income-driven repayment plan and have an annual income under $120,000 for an individual or under $240,000 for couples. The White House estimates that 25 million people will benefit from this feature of the new plan, including 23 million who could have their unpaid interest completely forgiven.

Once the plan is finalized, another 2 million borrowers could automatically have their loans canceled because they’re eligible for existing forgiveness programs, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness , but never applied. The proposed plan will also automatically cancel the loans of people who have been in repayment on undergraduate loans for at least 20 years, and graduate loans for 25 years or more. It would also forgive the debt of borrowers who attended career training programs that led to high debt loads or low earnings.

A fifth category of borrowers would receive debt relief if they are facing hardships , such as high medical debt or child-care expenses, that prevent them from repaying their student loans. The specific terms of each category will be fleshed out in the formal rule due out soon.

The administration plans to roll out the interest education feature this fall, and the remaining features could be implemented next summer.

Who is eligible for student loan forgiveness?

The majority of Americans with federally held student loans will qualify for some level of relief under the new plan. People with privately held federal loans originated through the defunct Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program would also benefit from some aspects of the proposal.

Those commercial FFEL borrowers would receive forgiveness if they entered repayment on or before July 1, 2000, or are eligible but have not yet applied for a closed school discharge — a form of debt cancellation for borrowers whose schools abruptly close. Such borrowers would also be eligible for debt relief if they have loans associated with a college that lost access to federal student aid because of high loan default rates, according to the Education Department.

Do I need to apply for this loan forgiveness?

While the specifics of the plan are still being hashed out at the Education Department, the Biden administration said the goal is for the vast majority of the relief to be automatic.

I was approved for loan forgiveness in the old plan. Will I qualify this time?

It depends on whether you fit any of the five categories for loan forgiveness.

How is this different from the plan rejected by the Supreme Court?

Biden’s 2022 student loan forgiveness plan relied on the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (Heroes) Act of 2003, which lets the secretary of education “alleviate the hardship that federal student loan recipients may suffer as a result of national emergencies.” The president argued that the coronavirus pandemic created economic hardship for borrowers that required government intervention of up to $20,000 in loan cancellation for 40 million borrowers. But in striking down the debt plan , a majority of Supreme Court justices said the Heroes statute was not designed for policy with such a “staggering” economic impact.

This time, instead of the 2003 law, the Biden administration anchored its new plan with authority in the 1965 Higher Education Act, which allows the education secretary to compromise, waive or release loans under certain circumstances. Critics of Biden’s plan question whether the 1965 law permits expansive debt relief envisioned by the administration, and note that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in his opinion last year that the act can be used to cancel debt in “certain limited circumstances.”

The Biden administration said the new plan is composed of interventions that address specific circumstances in ways that are covered by the Higher Education Act. The president is confident he is acting within the scope of the law, according to the White House.

Are private loans eligible?

Loans originated and held by banks and other private entities are not eligible for the new forgiveness plan. But federal loans held by private companies are eligible for some components.

Student loans

The impact of student loan repayments : A technical loophole is helping some parents lower their student loan payments . The ending of the student loan payment pause has left some borrowers anxious and confused .

What are my student loan repayment options? Personal finance columnist Michelle Singletary shares what to focus on as student loan payments resume and why she says President Biden’s new SAVE student loan income-driven plan is a game changer .

What’s next for student loan debt relief? Biden is forging ahead on a new path to narrower student loan relief after the Supreme Court rejected his earlier loan forgiveness plan . Meanwhile, conservative groups sued to block Biden’s effort to provide $39 billion in forgiveness to longtime borrowers.