MORGANTOWN – WVU law students got a live look at the workings of a federal court Wednesday morning. The U.S. Fourth Circuit Appeals Court came to the law school to hear oral arguments in the appeals of three cases.
Students filled the auditorium, forms on their laps to answer questions about the cases for their professors.
The Fourth Circuit is based in Richmond, Va., and covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. It regularly visits law schools within its jurisdiction.
Three judges sat at the dais: Chief Judge Albert Diaz presiding, with Judges Robert King and Stephanie Thacker on either side.
The first case dealt with a familiar matter in West Virginia: black lung disease. A miner with 27 years’ experience who worked for Wolf Run Mining Co. was awarded black lung benefits by the U.S. Department of Labor Benefits Review Board. He filed his claim in 2017 and received his award in 2023.
Wolf Run is appealing that award, alleging the administrative law judge who oversaw the case “didn’t do her homework,” as the attorney put it, and incorrectly sided with the miner. Doctors presented evidence, the attorney said, showing that the miner’s cigarette smoking caused his COPD and his black lung disease.
The miner’s attorney argued that Wolf Run failed to rebut what is called the “15-year presumption” regarding coal dust exposure, and that “that his total disability was caused by pneumoconiosis (black lung).”
Both sides were given 20 minutes to present their cases and then the Wolf Run attorney had another seven minutes for rebuttal. Throughout, the three judges interrupted them to ask questions and challenge their points. The back-and-forth was civil and cordial.
Court visits to campus are a regular occurrence and WVU law professor Mary Claire Davis explained the purpose.
The last time the Fourth Circuit came to WVU was 2019, she said. “So we were so excited to have the court back this year after seven years.”
The West Virginia Supreme Court also hears arguments on campus once a year, she said. It’s coming April 1 to hear three cases, giving the students the chance to see both federal and state appellate courts in action this semester.
And the reason for the visits?
“The students benefit tremendously from seeing real judges and real lawyers in action,” Davis said. “They have been reading case books and talking legal concepts in the abstract, but here, they were able to see those concepts come to life.” This reinforces their learning and gives context for the next time they read and discuss a case in class.
Davis said two judges on the panel were alumni of the WVU College of Law. “This is a really special touch, and I hope the students looked up to bench and thought, ‘That could be me someday.’”
We asked David about the forms the students were filling out.
Faculty members have different approaches to allow their students to fully engage with the cases being argued, she said. She teaches first-year legal writing.
“I instructed my students to read the briefs, identify strengths and weaknesses of the oral advocacy, and predict who they think the winner will be.”
They created a form for all first-year students to complete for this purpose, she said. She also teaches in an appellate clinic, composed of upper-level students, and they were asked to read the briefs and identify how effectively they believe the advocates presented the argument orally and on paper.
The second case was a criminal matter. The convicted offender was convicted at trial of using his position as an organ transplant coordinator illegally to access George Washington Hospital visiting records of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The jury also found that he deleted evidence of this conduct from his hard drive.
His appeal stems from the assertion that he was wrongfully coerced to convey information in a surprise interview conducted by the FBI but also attended by the CEO of his company. He had no counsel present and the presence of the CEO put undue pressure on him by implicitly threatening his future employment.
The format was the same and the three judges again grilled both attorneys – though they were a bit harder on the appellant’s attorney. King brought some humor and a bit of skepticism to the conversation with the appellant’s attorney by repeatedly noting that the defendant at one time asserted his cat walked across his keyboard – he worked from home – causing his computer to access Ginsburg’s records.
The final case was an arbitration matter concerning former employees of various automotive dealerships.
