Supreme Court Makes History Twice Today | Day One Of Remote Arguments And Live Audio Went Off Without A Hitch (Or A Dog Interrupting)
May 4, 2020
MAY THE FOURTH BE WITH YOU
|This morning, the Supreme Court for the first time in its history conducted oral arguments remotely via teleconference and allowed the public to listen in live. And guess what…everything went pretty smoothly. The case argued this morning concerned whether Booking.com can trademark its name, with ERICA ROSS arguing for the government and LISA BLATT arguing for Booking.com. The arguments took place for a little over an hour, as CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS prompted each of his colleagues to take their turns asking questions of attorneys. JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS, who usually likes to keep quiet during arguments, found it in himself to ask questions during both rounds of questioning. There was the occasional pause when justices and attorneys were put on the spot and presumably taking themselves off of mute, and at times audio levels went up and down. But nothing seemed to hinder participants’ ability to fully engage with the hearing, or the public’s ability to follow along.
JUST GETTING STARTED
|Missed this morning’s arguments? You’ll have another shot tomorrow at 10 AM Eastern, and again on Wednesday also at 10 AM. For info on how to listen live, visit Fix the Court’s schedule of May arguments along with information on how to access the live feeds.
PIPE DOWN PUPPER
|Veteran Supreme Court advocate, LISA BLATT, argued in this morning’s historic virtual hearing. Blatt had told Ariane de Vogue with CNN that she never expected one of her pre-argument worries would include how to keep her dog from interrupting her engaging with Supreme Court justices. While there didn’t seem to be any sign of a dog during this morning’s session, her worry reflects this new world we’re living in and how the orbit around SCOTUS is having to adjust.
HORSE HAS LEFT THE BARN
|Adam Liptak with The New York Times covers the Supreme Court breaking history twice — both with hearing arguments via teleconference and letting the public listen in live. Liptak writes, “The court has never before heard a case by phone, a move that some lawyers fear will degrade the quality of the arguments and the spirited give-and-take of the courtroom. Nor has it allowed live audio coverage of its arguments, on rare occasions releasing same-day audio, but usually waiting until the end of the week to do so. Now that those barriers have been broken, the question is whether at least some of the changes may last far beyond the coming two weeks.”
CAN'T ALWAYS COMPROMISE
|Jeannie Suk Gersen for The New Yorker previews the three upcoming Supreme Court cases concerning the president’s financial records. Those cases will be argued during this month’s remote sessions, and two of them involve House subpoenas for PRESIDENT TRUMP’S financial information. Gersen notes the challenge these cases pose for the high court — in particular, CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS who has continued to be more and more outspoken against suggestions of judicial partisanship. “The chief justice may want to find a nonpartisan compromise — but, in these cases, one does not exist. That would counsel in favor of the court standing up to the other branches and enforcing the separation of powers in a merits decision, much as it did in the Nixon case. For those at the top of the judicial branch, there is a motivation that is greater than partisanship: the desire to retain the perception of legitimacy that is most crucial to maintenance of its power. That legitimacy now hangs on the court’s ability to demonstrate that neither the president nor any party is supreme over it.”
A WEEK FROM TODAY
|“Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James School v. Biel, are difficult cases, which the court will hear in a rare teleconferenced oral argument next Monday. They concern whether two Catholic school teachers qualify as ‘ministers,’ and are therefore beyond the reach of workplace civil rights laws.” Ian Millhiser with Vox previews these upcoming cases in which, he says, the stakes are profound. “If an employee is classified as a ‘minister,’ they effectively lose their rights to be free from discrimination in the workplace. If the court permits large swaths of workers to be classified as ‘ministers,’ it could open the floodgates to widespread discrimination.”