Contributors

Leah Litman

Assistant Professor of Law

University of California, Irvine, School of Law

Prof. Leah Litman researches and writes on constitutional law with a particular focus on federalism and federal post-conviction review.  Her recent work has appeared or will appear in the Michigan Law Review, the Virginia Law Review, the Duke Law Journal, the Northwestern Law Review, and the Federal Sentencing Reporter as well as several online journals including the Columbia Law Review Sidebar.

After graduating from the University of Michigan Law School, she clerked for Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Following her clerkships, she worked at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, where she specialized in appellate litigation. Prof. Litman was also a Climenko Fellow & Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and received one of the inaugural HLS Student Government Teaching & Advising Awards.

Prof. Litman maintains an active pro bono practice.  Most recently, she was on an amicus brief in Beckles v. United States. She was also on the merits briefs in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt and an amicus brief in Welch v. United States. She also assisted arguing counsel in DeBoer v. Snyder and assisted with drafting the opening brief in Obergefell v. Hodges.

READ OFFICIAL BIO

Subscribe For Updates

On The Travel Ban The Supreme Court Says: Stay Tuned

6/26/17  //  Quick Reactions

Some quick thoughts on the Supreme Court's actions on the travel ban.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Clarifying Memorandum Is Not A Reason For A Stay

6/21/17  //  Quick Reactions

An analysis of DOJ's latest filing at SCOTUS in the travel ban cases.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The President’s Clarifying Memorandum And The Amicus Brief About Animus

6/20/17  //  Commentary

The President’s clarifying memorandum undercuts the legitimate rationale the executive order and DOJ had offered for the entry ban. An amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court explains why that matters.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

How the President’s Clarifying Memorandum Destroys the Case for the Entry Ban

6/15/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The President's "clarifying" memorandum undermines the facial legitimacy of the entry ban, and the government's stated purposes for the entry ban.

Take Care

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

[UPDATED] The Government’s Vanishing National Security Rationale

6/14/17  //  Commentary

The government’s litigation strategy in the travel ban litigation undermines the purported national security rationale for the entry ban.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Audacity of The President’s "Hope"

6/13/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Senator Risch asked Jim Comey whether a person has been charged for obstruction of justice or any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome. We hope he finds our research instructive.

Daniel Epps

Washington University Law School

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law