A Supreme Court Argument Debut, and a New Format: Opening Day Highlights
Sarah Schrup, head of Northwestern University School of Law's Supreme Court practicum, was the first lawyer to make use of the new two minutes of uninterrupted argument time.
October 07, 2019 at 03:05 PM
4 minute read
It was a packed house at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday morning. Was it because this was the first Monday in October, the big day for Supreme Court aficionados? Or was it because Supreme Court practitioners wanted to see how the court's new policy giving advocates two uninterrupted minutes of argument time would work out?
Either way, the lawyers' section was full. Former deputy solicitor general Michael Dreeben, who was accustomed to sitting at the counsel table for his hundred-plus arguments, this time had to sit in the public seating because of the crowd. And outside, the lines were growing longer by the minute, with some stalwarts waiting to hear Monday's arguments and others camping out for seats Tuesday, when the justices hear landmark arguments over workplace civil rights protection for LGBTQ employees.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. started off the session by alerting spectators that Justice Clarence Thomas was "indisposed because of illness." Then Roberts paid tribute to Justice Stephen Breyer for his "distinguished service" of 25 years on the court, and to the late Justice John Paul Stevens, who died in July. "His kindness, humility, independence and wisdom have left us a better court," Roberts said. He added: "His commitment to justice has left us a better nation."
After swearing in a passel of lawyers to the Supreme Court bar, the first oral argument began: Kahler v. Kansas, a debate over whether states can abolish the insanity defense. Sarah Schrup, head of Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law's Supreme Court practicum, rose to argue at the high court for the first time. And she was the first lawyer to make use of the two uninterrupted minutes of argument time.
Two minutes turns out to be a long time with a court whose members are accustomed to asking questions almost immediately after the lawyer says "May it please the court." It may have felt long, but it also felt civil, giving lawyers a brief and dignified chance to frame their arguments before the melee begins.
And sure enough, as soon as the white light flickered on to signal that the two minutes were up, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg jumped in forcefully with a question for Schrup. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is often the first questioner, was silent as Schrup argued for the insanity defense against a barrage of skeptical questions from other justices.
But Sotomayor made up for her silence by being the first questioner at the end of the two-minute allotments for Kansas Solicitor General Toby Crouse and assistant to the solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar. The questioning was brisk from all the justices on the bench, and every remaining minute was used.
The shiny two-minute gifts seemed to be a hit. After the argument was over, Schrup said, "It was fine." And Dreeben, who had been skeptical about the change, said, "it was better than I expected."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All11th Circuit Revives Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
End of an (Chevron) Era: DC Circuit Tackles Challenge to Fishing Monitor Rule, Again
'Major Change'? 6th Circuit Steps Into Fight Over NLRB's Expanded Money Remedies
Split 4th Circuit Ruling Is a Win for Covington & Burling in US Army Base Attack Litigation
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 3Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: Big Law Profits Vs. Political Values
- 5Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250