For third-year students Henry Lu and Joseph Saoud, taking part in the First Amendment Clinic offered that chance to get courtroom experience and much more.

“I personally really wanted to get that hands-on experience. I was told before starting that clinic gives students the opportunity to kind of lead their own cases, something that a lot of junior associates won’t be able to get,” Lu said. “We were given that opportunity. We had pretty significant leeway in terms of being able to navigate through the case, and I think that that was a really valuable experience.”

Lu and Saoud were assigned a defamation case involving rival politicians. After their political campaign against each other, one of the politicians filed suit claiming statements from the other politician were defamatory. The First Amendment Clinic pair joined the case in the early stages and worked on a motion to dismiss some or all of the claims as not defamatory as a matter of law.

Both students came to the clinic with a passion for the First Amendment and were excited to tackle a case like this, putting what they’ve studied so diligently in class to practice in a real-life setting. At times the case felt imposing, between the weight of filing documents in court for the first time and working for older professionals while still a student. Saoud described it as a “different kind of pressure.”

“There’s something about the stakes being so much higher when you know that this is a consequential piece of paper I’m working on right now and if I don’t give it my all this can have really big implications for someone’s life,” he added. “I think that pushed us to produce our best work when maybe in class we would have been just tired and not wanting to put in more work. But it was great. I feel so much more confident now.”

After their day in court, Lu and Saoud were able to get four-and-a-half of the 12 statements in the suit dismissed for their client, a result both felt proud to have accomplished. Saoud summed it up by saying, “If success is all the learning that we did, absolutely it was successful.”

Though helping their client was the most important thing, Lu and Saoud agreed the work was important for them personally. The experience writing briefs and learning administrative parts of the job, such as tracking hours, will be greatly beneficial in the very near future after the duo graduate and begin their careers. For all those reasons, the First Amendment clinic experience is one they would recommend to any student.

“I think the First Amendment Clinic was one of the most valuable experiences of my law school journey,” Lu said. “You spend so much time in the classroom in law school, and you never actually get to participate in the practice of law, which is what you go to law school for in the first place. Joseph and I talked about this a lot, but we always recommend our friends to apply for the First Amendment Clinic and we tell them about our experience. I think a lot of people would definitely benefit from it.”

Learn more about the First Amendment Clinic at Illinois.

“When responding to records requests, there is a strong presumption of openness and liberal access to public records,” wrote the judge.  “[T]he DOJ has not met its burden to show that this is an ‘exceptional case’ warranting nondisclosure.”  The judge concluded that DOJ’s denial “was not the product of a genuine, case-by-case balancing analysis, but rather a habitual denial based on [its] past inability to garner compliance from local agencies.”

The suit was brought by The Badger Project and Invisible Institute.  The media organizations are represented by the Wisconsin Transparency Project and the University of Illinois College of Law First Amendment Clinic.

The Badger Project is a nonpartisan journalism nonprofit that focuses on and investigates government, politics, and related matters in Wisconsin. Invisible Institute is a nonprofit public accountability journalism organization based in Chicago.  Both organizations have litigated cases seeking police records and written extensively about law enforcement issues, particularly the problem of “wandering officers” who jump agencies to avoid discipline.

The Badger Project and Invisible Institute asked for officers’ names, birth years or ages, zip code, and work history.  Most states release this information, but have not experienced any significant problems caused by making the information public.  The request did not ask for home addresses.

Both organizations have reported on the lawsuit:

Wisconsin Is in the Minority of States Shielding Police Data.  We’re Suing to Change that

‘Wisconsin does not, and should not, have secret police’ – The Badger Project sues state DOJ for full list of law enforcement officers

“Courts have ruled time and time again that speculative fears of harm do not justify withholding government records from the public,” said Tom Kamenick, president of the Wisconsin Transparency Project.  “Government officials must do more than merely claim that, hypothetically, something bad might happen if the records are released.  Rather, they must show that harm is likely to occur and is sufficiently serious to overcome the presumption of access to government records.  DOJ could not do that here.”

“We are incredibly proud to have represented the Invisible Institute in this critical fight for accountability,” said Lena Shapiro, Director of the First Amendment Clinic. “Securing this victory took three years of sustained effort, with nine students and two fellows from the First Amendment Clinic pouring their energy into this matter to ensure that the public’s right to know prevailed over blanket government secrecy.”

The Clinic students handled discovery, including resolving disputes and taking depositions, and briefed the successful motion for summary judgment, which was ultimately argued in January by advanced student Gabriela De La Llana.For a copy of the complaint, contact the First Amendment Clinic at the University of Illinois College of Law at law-firstamend@illinois.edu.

Read the full article from Law360.

Sara Gerke joins Illinois as an Associate Professor of Law and Richard W. & Marie L. Corman Scholar. Her research focuses on the ethical and legal challenges of artificial intelligence and big data for health care and health law in the United States and Europe. She also researches comparative law and ethics of other issues at the cutting edge of medical developments, such as the clinical translation of stem cell research, biological products, such as somatic cells, tissues, and gene therapy, reproductive medicine, such as mitochondrial replacement techniques, and digital health more generally. Professor Gerke has over 60 publications in health law and bioethics, and her work has appeared in leading law, medical, scientific, and bioethics journals. Professor Gerke earned a JD from University of Augsburg and an MA from King’s College London.  

Bill Watson joins Illinois as an Assistant Professor of Law. His work has focused on the intersection of public law and philosophy and has appeared or is forthcoming in law reviews like the Northwestern University Law Review and Boston University Law Review, as well as peer-reviewed journals like Law and Philosophy and Legal Theory. He is currently working on projects that address originalism in constitutional interpretation, the import of legal positivism for legal interpretation, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent treatment of precedent. Professor Watson received his JD from the University of Chicago Law School and his PhD in Philosophy from Cornell University. He was a Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School immediately prior to joining the University of Illinois faculty. 

Jingkang (Jake) Gao joins Illinois as a Visiting Assistant Professor of Law. In his work, he has explored how legal institutions can make urban mobility safer, cleaner, more accessible, and more equitable, and how insights from urban mobility can enrich the study of law. He has applied his background in law in his work with the Chicago Transit Authority on facilitating bus electrification and cultivating a healthier electric bus market in the United States. Professor Gao earned his JD from Columbia Law School and his PhD and an MS from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Maxim Krupskiy joins Illinois as a Visiting Scholar, as part of the Illinois Scholars at Risk program. He has more than twelve years of experience practicing law in Russia defending refugees and civil activists and, as an independent expert, has prepared more than forty independent anti-corruption expert opinions. Krupskiy recently spent time as a Visiting Scholar at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a Non-Resident Fellow at the George Washington University, Russia Program.   

Benjamin Horton joins Illinois as a Visiting Lecturer in Law and Stanton Fellow with our First Amendment Clinic. He was inspired to pursue a legal education during the 2016 presidential election and focused his education on free expression and election issues, participating in several clinics and interning for the Center for Democracy and Technology. After completing his JD at Harvard Law School, Horton spent a year with Free Speech For People, an election litigation nonprofit, and two years clerking in the District of Massachusetts. 

The College of Law is proud to have these individuals joining our faculty and looks forward to their accomplishments as part of the University of Illinois.

“The night before and the morning of, I was incredibly stressed and nervous, like nothing I’ve ever felt in my life,” Resnick said with a laugh.

His nerves were understandable, of course, as he stood before the last appellate court before the Supreme Court, ready to take part in the first arguments presented by any First Amendment Clinic students.

He, Alexandrova, and Shapiro were appearing on behalf of a group of Libertarians whose members fell out of favor with the national party and were banned from using the national organization’s name and logo. The group had been restricted via an injunction from U.S. District Judge Judith E. Levy in August. It was at this point the Clinic got involved, helping appeal the decision to the Sixth Circuit in the case of Libertarian National Committee v. Saliba.

Alexandrova and Resnick were paired together for this case in fall 2023 and dove headlong into the work, finding inspiration in other classes and drawing upon their whole experience at the College of Law to create a strong argument for their clients. Close to the deadline for the brief, the clinicians, along with Shapiro and co-counsel, C. Nicholas Curcio of the Curcio Law Firm, went through an estimated eight or nine revisions over the course of several weeks, sacrificing free time and working late. The experience was nearly overwhelming, but the pair agreed it was among the most consequential aspects of their legal education.

“I honestly think it’s the most valuable thing I did in law school,” Alexandrova said.

“I think this type of experience is almost necessary,” Resnick agreed.

Brief writing was just a part of the experience, however, and the immensity of it did not scare the students away from signing up for another semester. To prepare for oral arguments in spring, College of Law professors put Alexandrova and Resnick through a litany of moot court sessions. With help from fellow students Christian Hallerud ’24 and Diana Sweeney ’24, the duo created arguments to present before the likes of Rummana Alam, Vikram Amar, Sean Anderson, Jim Fessler, Eric Johnson, Andrew Leipold, and Jason Mazzone. Despite the challenge—particularly from Amar and Mazzone, Resnick noted—the young attorneys felt much better prepared as a result.

“They were pretty intense. They didn’t hold back. They would interrupt you nonstop,” Alexandrova recounted. “I think that helped make me a better advocate for sure. I learned how to think on my feet a lot more than I ever have before. I personally, I have six years of mock trial experience, so I’m used to responding to evidentiary objections on the spot, but when it’s about the law and your entire argument, I think that’s a little bit harder.”

Although the anxiety was real as they entered the courtroom in June, their preparation and the presence of Shapiro at their side helped to settle their nerves. As the last case on the day’s schedule, the experience of watching other arguments—including arguments from University of Michigan law students—calmed them further.

When Libertarian National Committee v. Saliba was brought before the judges, Alexandrova delivered the argument while Resnick and Shapiro took notes and helped organize their rebuttal, which Resnick delivered. Their line of reasoning, that the case is fundamentally about the right to dissent and how not overturning or vacating the preliminary injunction would have a chilling effect on free speech, drew kind words from the judges hearing the case.

Shapiro had nothing but praise for her students as well.

“I’m extraordinarily proud,” she said. “They were very diligent. They took this very seriously, and they gave up time during their bar prep study in the summer to do this…. They worked great as a team. It was a pleasure to have them both semesters and into the summer. I would just really commend their hard work and their persistence to get better and advocate on behalf of our clients.”

Though they must wait on a decision, the experience itself has been something both clinicians reflected fondly upon as they studied for the bar and prepared for careers in litigation.

“When we were in the Sixth Circuit in Ohio, I felt like there was a reason we were doing this kind of work,” Alexandrova said. “And when you really think about it, if the Clinic didn’t take the case, I think effectively our clients would have been silenced. So, on a big-picture level, I think what we did was important.”

Read the full article on CNN’s website.

The University of Illinois College of Law launched the First Amendment Clinic in 2023 with the support of the Stanton Foundation. The Clinic works to defend and advance the rights of free speech, press, assembly and petition through litigation and advocacy, while providing law students with practice and real-world experience to become leaders on First Amendment issues.

The Clinic takes on a wide array of matters including defending individuals exercising their right to dissenting political speech, advancing litigation on behalf of journalists to gain access to vital information, pursuing claims arising out of retaliation for First Amendment-protected speech, and advocating for the rights of citizens to openly critique government entities and officials. The Clinic represents individuals and organizations across the Midwest whose viewpoints span the political spectrum.

Learn more about the position and apply by June 7. 

Read the full interview with the Illinois News Bureau.

Read more about this case in the Law360 article.