Highlights

Professor argues and wins before the U.S. Supreme Court

Professor David Mills at a moot held at the law school before his supreme court argument

Adjunct Professor David Mills argued and won Ortiz v. Jordan before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Professor Mills appeared before the Supreme Court on November 1, 2010. Professor Andrew Pollis assisted with the reply brief and was co-counsel at the argument. This was Professor Mills' first time before the Court and Professor Pollis' second.

The case began when Ohio Reformatory Inmate, Michelle Ortiz, sued state prison officials for failing to protect her from a prison guard's sexual abuse and for retaliating against her by putting her in solitary confinement after reporting the abuse. The officials moved for summary judgment before trial based on qualified immunity, and the district court denied that motion. The officials did not appeal that ruling, so the case proceeded to trial, and the jury issued a verdict concluding that Ortiz's rights were violated. The officials then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, where a 2-1 decision reversed the district court's order denying summary judgment, effectively overturning Ortiz's verdict. The dissenting judge called this result a "legal travesty."

"My argument to the Supreme Court was that the Sixth Circuit lacked the power to extinguish the jury's verdict based on a review of the district court's pre-trial order denying summary judgment," Mills explained.

Mills notes that the ramifications of the Ortiz decision will affect not only Michelle Ortiz. "The decision sets legal precedent that will govern federal procedure in all 13 federal courts of appeals in the country. I believe the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case to clarify the conditions under which, if ever, a party may appeal the denial of summary judgment after trial and effectively overturn the verdict."

On January 24 the Supreme Court released a unanimous 9-0 decision, ruling in favor of Ortiz and reinstating a $625,000 judgment.

Each year, the Court receives approximately 8,500 petitions for certiorari, of which approximately 80 are granted plenary review with oral arguments.

A solo federal appellate attorney who opened the Mills Law Office two years ago, Mills teaches Appellate Practice at the law school.

For more information:

Read the transcript of the oral argument in Ortiz v. Jordan
Listen to the audio of the oral argument
Read the decision

News Archive

Professor argues and wins before the U.S. Supreme Court

Professor David Mills at a moot held at the law school before his supreme court argument

Adjunct Professor David Mills argued and won Ortiz v. Jordan before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Professor Mills appeared before the Supreme Court on November 1, 2010. Professor Andrew Pollis assisted with the reply brief and was co-counsel at the argument. This was Professor Mills' first time before the Court and Professor Pollis' second.

The case began when Ohio Reformatory Inmate, Michelle Ortiz, sued state prison officials for failing to protect her from a prison guard's sexual abuse and for retaliating against her by putting her in solitary confinement after reporting the abuse. The officials moved for summary judgment before trial based on qualified immunity, and the district court denied that motion. The officials did not appeal that ruling, so the case proceeded to trial, and the jury issued a verdict concluding that Ortiz's rights were violated. The officials then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, where a 2-1 decision reversed the district court's order denying summary judgment, effectively overturning Ortiz's verdict. The dissenting judge called this result a "legal travesty."

"My argument to the Supreme Court was that the Sixth Circuit lacked the power to extinguish the jury's verdict based on a review of the district court's pre-trial order denying summary judgment," Mills explained.

Mills notes that the ramifications of the Ortiz decision will affect not only Michelle Ortiz. "The decision sets legal precedent that will govern federal procedure in all 13 federal courts of appeals in the country. I believe the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case to clarify the conditions under which, if ever, a party may appeal the denial of summary judgment after trial and effectively overturn the verdict."

On January 24 the Supreme Court released a unanimous 9-0 decision, ruling in favor of Ortiz and reinstating a $625,000 judgment.

Each year, the Court receives approximately 8,500 petitions for certiorari, of which approximately 80 are granted plenary review with oral arguments.

A solo federal appellate attorney who opened the Mills Law Office two years ago, Mills teaches Appellate Practice at the law school.

For more information:

Read the transcript of the oral argument in Ortiz v. Jordan
Listen to the audio of the oral argument
Read the decision