- \n\t\t\t\t\t\n
- \n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
![\"Madeline](\"\/law\/files\/2023\/07\/Meth-Madeline-23-1-300x300.jpg\")
<\/figure>\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMadeline Meth<\/h6>\n\t\t
Clinical Associate Professor<\/p>\t<\/a>\n\n\t\n<\/li>\n\t\t\t<\/ul>\n\t<\/span><\/p>\n
Our Litigation<\/h2>\n
Roe v. Marshall Univ. Bd. of Governors, 145 F.4th 561 (4th Cir. 2025)<\/span><\/h4>\n
Concerning, among other things, whether it\u2019s a Title IX violation for a university to punish a student who reports being sexually harassed by another student purportedly for engaging in underage drinking around the time of the assault and when a university has substantial control over student-on-student sexual harassment that occurs off campus. Clinic wrote opening brief and reply brief and clinic student Gregory Bowe handled oral argument.<\/p>\n
- \n
- Listen to oral argument<\/a><\/li>\n
- Read opening brief<\/a><\/li>\n
- Read reply brief<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Norwood v. United States of America (3rd. Cir. pending)<\/h4>\n
Concerning whether the Sentencing Commission\u2019s policy statement permitting district courts to consider non-retroactive changes in law as \u201cextraordinary and compelling\u201d Along with co-counsel from Georgetown Law\u2019s Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic, clinic wrote initial petition for hearing en banc. <\/span><\/p>\n
- \n
- Read <\/span>petition<\/span><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Ferguson v. United States of America (S. Ct.)<\/h4>\n
Concerning whether the federal habeas statute limits a district court\u2019s discretion to consider legal errors in prior proceedings as \u201cextraordinary and compelling reasons\u201d warranting a sentence reduction under the federal compassionate-release statute. The clinic wrote a cert-stage reply brief in Ferguson\u2019s case. Although the Supreme Court did not grant cert in Ferguson\u2019s case, in 2025, the Court granted cert on the question presented by Ferguson\u2019s case in Fernandez v. United States (S. Ct. No. 24-556).<\/p>\n
- \n
- Read reply brief<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024)<\/h4>\n
Concerning whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discriminatory job transfers and refusals to transfer. Along with co-counsel from Georgetown Law\u2019s Appellate Court\u2019s immersion clinic, the clinic wrote the merits-stage opening and reply brief for petitioner Jatonya Muldrow. The clinic won the case 9-0.<\/p>\n
- \n
- Read brief<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Sonmez v. Washington Post, 330 A.3d 285 (D.C. 2025)<\/h4>\n
Concerning whether the Washington Post violated the D.C. Human Rights Act when it banned reporter from covering #MeToo related stories after she was open about having been sexually assaulted. Clinic handled oral argument, and, along with co-counsel from Georgetown Law\u2019s Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic, fended off the Post\u2019s petition for rehearing en banc.<\/p>\n
- \n
- Read response to petition for en banc review<\/a><\/li>\n
- Watch oral argument<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Freeman v. Lincalis, F.4th, 2025 WL 3020069 (3d Cir. Oct. 29, 2025)<\/span><\/h4>\n
Concerning, among other questions, whether procedural requirements under the Federal Torts Claim Act are jurisdictional or claims-processing rules and whether the United States acted negligently by treating a prisoner like a contract killer with two victims when the U.S. Probation Office knew that this information was false and had been ordered to strike it from the prisoner\u2019s pre-sentence report. Clinic wrote opening brief and reply brief and handled oral argument. The Third Circuit\u2019s Judge Roth wrote this about the clinic\u2019s representation: <\/span>“<\/span>Freeman is represented, at our request, by the Boston University School of Law Appellate Clinic. We thank them for their excellent representation. Lawyers (and law students) who agree to act pro bono represent the legal community at its finest.”<\/span><\/p>\n
- \n
- Listen to oral argument<\/a><\/li>\n
- Read opening brief<\/a><\/li>\n
- Read reply brief<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Velez v. Eutzy, 152 F.4th 292 (1st Cir. 2025)<\/span><\/h4>\n
Concerning, among other issues, whether police officers violated individual\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unlawful arrest and excessive force when they grabbed, punched, tased, and arrested him supposedly for resisting arrest after he attempted to use his phone to record a traffic stop.<\/p>\n
- Read opening brief<\/a><\/li>\n
- Watch oral argument<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Read response to petition for en banc review<\/a><\/li>\n
- Read brief<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Read reply brief<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Read opening brief<\/a><\/li>\n
- Listen to oral argument<\/a><\/li>\n