Boston University School of Law
Civil Litigation Program

Case in brief: The clinic is representing Algerian political refugee Anwar Haddam, a physics professor who was incarcerated by the INS for four years on the basis of “secret evidence.” The INS claims Haddam was active in an Algerian terrorist group but has refused to disclose the evidence, citing national security concerns.

Main claim: The agency’s use of “secret evidence” in the case of Haddam (and roughly two dozen others like him) is unconstitutional.

Status: The clinic appealed Haddam’s case to the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals in November 1997. This past December, the board ruled that the terrorism charges were unfounded. It also ordered Haddam’s release and granted his asylum request, subject to D.O.J. review. An INS brief opposing the board’s decision was submitted to the U.S. Attorney General on March 2. The clinic’s response brief was due by April 2.

Rutgers University Law School
Constitutional Litigation Clinic

Case in brief: The clinic is representing eighteen former detainees at the INS detention center in Elizabeth, New Jersey.

Main claim: Substandard conditions at the center—including rancid food and a chronic lack of toilet paper and sanitary napkins—violated the detainees’ human rights. The case is one of the first to attempt to bring international human rights law to bear on an alleged human rights violation in the United States.

Status: The clinic took on the case in June 1995, after a riot at the detention center. In 1998, the INS lost a motion to dismiss the case on summary judgment. Discovery is now in full swing.

University of Southern California
Post-Conviction Justice Project

Case in brief: The clinic is representing two former inmates at the California Institute for Women in a sexual harassment suit against the prison’s ex-chaplain. The women charge that the chaplain attempted to fondle inmates and make other unwanted sexual advances. They also allege that prison officials failed to prevent or correct the behavior.

Main claim: The harassment violated the inmates’ Eighth Amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

Status: The clinic scored a key victory last May when a judge rejected the defendants’ motion to have the case thrown out on summary judgment. Trial is set for April 24.