Pro bono

We assembled an international team of lawyers and high-profile amici to submit an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Bobby James Moore, an individual who had been on death row for over 35 years and in solitary confinement for over 14 years. The brief focused on the approach of non-U.S. courts, together with international tribunals and commissions, on the legality of extended periods of incarceration on death row. We addressed, from an international and comparative (i.e., non-U.S.) perspective, whether execution following an extended period of incarceration would be unconstitutional or against international human rights norms. The issue was relevant to assist the Court in determining whether Moore’s execution would breach the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment.”

The Court granted certiorari on other grounds and ultimately held that Texas’ test for determining intellectual disability was inconsistent with the Eighth Amendment, as Texas relied upon an outdated definition of intellectual disability to determine whether the death penalty could be imposed.  The Court remanded the case to the Texas courts for resentencing.  Bobby was eventually released on parole in June 2020.

Members of our team across all offices have, for a number of years, worked with the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), an organisation dedicated to assisting refugees from the Middle East and Asia. Working with prominent US-based law schools, members of the team have coordinated the legal advice and application process for refugees.

One prominent example includes the case of Demssew Tsega Abebe, which received nationwide U.S. media attention. Demssew was a renowned marathon runner in Ethiopia and was expected to be on his country’s Olympic team. In response to peaceful protests against his government, Demssew was tortured, forcing him to flee to Washington, DC in 2016. He had been trying to bring his wife and two children to the U.S. ever since, in part to get medical care for his 5-year-old son. Our team filed an Application for Humanitarian Parole on behalf of his wife and young children.  Although such Application is an exceptional form of relief, which is granted only in rare cases, the team’s application– which was supported by letters from five members of the U.S. Congress – was granted and allowed Demssew to be reunited with his family.

Working with human rights organisation REDRESS, we prepared a merits submission on behalf of Mariam Yahia Ibraheem and her family against Sudan, before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The case concerns Sudan’s discriminatory and degrading treatment of Mariam on the basis of her religion and gender.  Mariam managed to leave Sudan, and after meeting the Pope in the Vatican, reached safety in the United States.

Mariam and her family seek a number of remedies from Sudan, including a prompt and impartial investigation of Mariam’s arrest, trial and treatment in custody, and a public apology from Sudan for the human rights violations suffered.  This case received renewed international media attention following Sudan’s announcement that it will be reforming its laws to abolish the crime of apostasy.

Members of our team filed an amicus curiae submission in support of the federal government’s ban on female genital mutilation (FGM) in United States v. Nagarwala et al. This landmark case, brought in the Eastern District of Michigan, is the first US federal criminal trial under 18 U.S.C. § 116 (Section 116), which sets forth the United States’ federal ban on FGM. Three Crowns filed the amicus submission on behalf of four non-governmental organizations committed to the elimination of FGM: Equality Now, Sahiyo, WeSpeakOut, and Safe Hands for Girls. On 2 November 2018, Judge Bernard A. Friedman admitted the amicus submission into the record.

The amicus submission responded to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, which set out a constitutional challenge to Section 116 under the US Commerce Clause and Treaty Power. In support of the United States government’s position, the amicus submission argued that FGM is a human rights violation of national and international concern, which often involves interstate and international travel and is a valid subject for legislative action under the Commerce Clause. The amicus submission argued that Congress’s enactment of federal-level FGM legislation also comports with its Treaty Power, as Section 116 rationally relates to the United States’ international human rights treaty commitments including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).