The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
One year without Supreme Court in-person oral arguments
The last in-person oral argument was on March 4, 2020, in June Medical Services v. Gee.
On March 4, 2020, the Supreme Court held oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Gee. At the time, it seemed like the February siting came to a close, and the Court would resume oral arguments in the normal course. But things would not be normal.
Who among us could have anticipated what the following year would bring? A shutdown of the Court? Live-streaming of oral arguments? Opinions issued on non-decision days in March (with one or more cases coming in about six hours)? The replacement of Justice Ginsburg with Justice Barrett? Another impeachment trial of President Trump, not presided over by Chief Justice Roberts? What a year.
I hope and pray that by March 4, 2022, and hopefully sooner, the Justices have resumed holding arguments in person. And maybe the Court can use this time to improve the line-waiting process.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Prof. Blackman, has the quality/quantity of the Court's activities suffered in this period?
While I can agree there may be certain, intangible advantages for in-person hearings, I also can see there may be certain advantages for holding virtual hearings, as they have doing.
Oh and thank you for praying for the Court's return to "normalcy."
If I were so inclined, I probably would pray for world peace, curing cancer, or ending all forms of human suffering, (but TBH, I'd prolly just pray for a boat - a BIG boat), but you go ahead and pray for what you think is best.
Paul von Hindenburg, 1931.
Joseph Biden, 2021.
I'm praying that George Santana was wrong...
And YOU, if you can cherry pick like that, you have done nothing remarkable. Why not Thomas Jefferson, 1801? Abraham Lincoln, 1861? Harding, 1921?
Were Jefferson, Lincoln, & Harding visibly old men clearly known to be at death's door?
Hindenburg had been a legitimate German hero -- back in 1916, some 15 years earlier. And Biden actually was a credible Presidential candidate back in 1988, some 33 years ago. But at this point in history, neither is the man he one was -- and Biden's not doing well right now...
Yes, of course, anyone who actually believes in prayer and ever prays for anything less than world peace is a selfish sonuvabeach.
Why do you hate other planetary societies so much? Show us on the prayer doll where the Betelguesians hurt you.
IDK, virtual hearings are working and I hope that they stick. The best thing about virtual hearings is that Thomas actually asks questions (probably because questions are posed in seniority order).
Courts should embrace technology and productivity. What exactly is the benefit of the Justices getting crammed into D.C. traffic for 2 hours a day?
The second best thing about virtual hearings is that they issue opinions whenever they are ready.
It isn't just because of seniority. This procedure allows Justices to actually process answers to their questions and ask necessary follow-ups. Moreover, you don't have Justices thinking that they are performing in a comedy club looking for laughter from the audience. I also think you are getting better quality arguments because everybody is in a set-up that makes them feel comfortable. On telephone conferences it is easy to have a pack of young associates/interns/clerks who can quickly produce elements of the record if needed.
Shut down all court rooms. They all violate the Establishment Clause. They look like churches. They are run like a Catholic service. They impose respect for judges. Judges are the worst people in our country. They are a major fsctor in the utter failure of the law. They stink and are thugs. Yet people are forced to stand when they enter.
Shut all courts. Sell them off. Fire their totally worthless employees. Lower taxes accordingly.
This is self evident to everyone except to the lawyer dumbass.
Shut and sell all court house. Next? Replace all the judge thugs with algorithms. These should written and owned by the legislature. If any is defective, let the victim sue the legislature for damages. No lawyer self dealt immunity.