Introduction
Law school clinics have become increasingly visible—and increasingly controversial—players in federal appellate litigation. Recent efforts to restrict clinic participation in certain jurisdictions have sparked fierce debate about the role of academic institutions in public interest advocacy. As one commentator recently noted, attacks on law school clinics represent not merely an assault on legal education but “an attack on democracy” itself, given clinics’ role in providing representation to underserved populations and causes. Yet beyond the political rhetoric lies an empirical question: What does clinic participation in federal appellate courts actually look like?
Recent successes underscore clinics’ impact. The University of Virginia’s Appellate Litigation Clinic, for example, recently celebrated six consecutive victories in federal appeals courts, demonstrating that clinic representation can achieve outcomes comparable to seasoned practitioners. These wins span diverse legal issues and circuits, illustrating both the breadth of clinic work and the quality of advocacy that student attorneys, under faculty supervision, can provide.
This article analyzes three years of clinic involvement across the federal circuit courts of appeals, examining which schools participate most actively, in which circuits and issue areas they concentrate their efforts, and whether they appear primarily as counsel of record or as amici curiae. The findings reveal patterns that illuminate both the clinical education landscape and the ecosystem of public interest appellate litigation. This builds on the prior analysis I ran on law school clinics for this Substack.
Theoretical Framework: Clinical Legal Education in Appellate Practice
Clinical legal education rests on several interconnected justifications. First, clinics serve an educational function that experiential learning theory suggests cannot be replicated in traditional classroom settings. Appellate clinics offer students opportunities to develop practical skills—legal research, brief writing, oral advocacy, client counseling, and strategic thinking—while simultaneously engaging with substantive areas of law.
Second, clinics fulfill an access-to-justice mission by representing clients who might otherwise lack effective representation. This is particularly true in appellate litigation, where the costs of briefing and arguing appeals can be prohibitive for individuals and small nonprofit organizations. Appellate clinics typically take on complex cases involving novel legal questions, constitutional challenges, or issues of significant public importance.
Third, clinics contribute to legal system development by bringing test cases and advancing legal arguments that shape doctrine. Their participation enriches the marketplace of ideas before appellate courts, particularly in areas where well-funded corporate interests might otherwise dominate.
These theoretical justifications find empirical support in studies measuring clinic outcomes and impact. Research has demonstrated that clinics achieve favorable results at rates comparable to other counsel and that clinic alumni report the experience as among the most valuable in their legal education.
Data and Methodology
The data analyzed here encompasses three years of law school clinic participation in the federal courts of appeals. The dataset captures both cases where clinics appeared as counsel of record for parties and cases where they filed amicus curiae briefs. It includes information on the participating law schools, the specific clinics involved, the circuits in which they appeared, and the substantive issue areas addressed.
Several caveats merit acknowledgment. The data reflects clinic participation as it appears in court filings and may not capture every instance of clinic involvement, particularly where clinics provided behind-the-scenes assistance without formal appearance. The categorization of cases by issue area involves some interpretation, as many cases touch multiple legal topics. The data does not distinguish between cases initiated by clinics and those they joined at the appellate level, nor does it track comprehensive outcome data.
Institutional Participation: Concentration Among Elite Schools