U.S. Supreme Court cases are serious business, to be sure, but even the most significant challenge offers opportunities for the justices—and advocates—to employ their own unique brand of humor.

Here's a look at some of the lines from justices and advocates that drew laughter this past year.

>> "I'm getting wheezy."

(Rodriguez v. FDIC, argued Dec. 3)

U.S. assistant solicitor general Michael Huston: I agree that that rule of—you would not put a thumb on the scale where the parties have a contract.

Justice Neil Gorsuch: Okay.

Huston: As we have always—

Justice Brett Kavanaugh: Is that a yes?

Gorsuch: All right. That's a lot of words.

Kavanaugh: Is that a yes?

Gorsuch: It's wrong. We got that. Okay.

Kavanaugh: Did you say—you said yes, though?

Gorsuch: He said it's wrong. So if that's the case, counsel—He said it's wrong. I'm not letting him off the hook so fast.

Kavanaugh: No, I'm trying to keep him on.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.: I'm getting wheezy with this back and forth. To be clear—

Gorsuch: Let me just—

Roberts: Is your answer to Justice Gorsuch's question, yes or no?

>> "Old habits are hard to break."

(Ritzen Group v. Jackson Masonry, argued Nov. 13)

Justice Stephen Breyer: Maybe you want to say something extra about why this is final.

Roberts: And if you do, I apologize for interrupting your two minutes opening, so I at least will not ask a question for the next two minutes.

Griffin Dunham of Nashville, Tennessee's Dunham Hildebrand: No, your honor.

Breyer: Nor will I, because I had those two.

Roberts: Old habits are hard to break. I apologize.

Dunham: Your honor, for the court's edification, I waive my right for any of the two minutes. It's better—

Roberts: I anticipated that's what you were doing.

Justice Alito testifying in 2019. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

>> "I'd like to know what's really going on here."

(Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, argued Oct. 15)

Justice Samuel Alito Jr.: Mr. Olson, are you and your client here just to defend the integrity of the Constitution, or would one be excessively cynical to think that something else is involved here involving money? And, if so, what is it? What did the board do that hurt your client?

[Alito and Ted Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher went back and forth for a moment.]

Alito: I mean, you don't have to answer this if you don't want to, but there is no money issue involved here?

Olson: Of course, there—of course

Alito: Well, what is it?

Olson: There's over—

Alito: I'd just like to know what—this is a real case. I'd like to know what's really going on here.

Olson: Well, there's over $100 billion of indebtedness being adjudicated in various procedures, a lot of which is—

Alito: Right, and your client wants more of it, and somebody else you think is getting too much. So what is it exactly?

>> "It's like ethics and Aristotle."

(Kahler v. Kansas, argued Oct. 7)

Breyer; I mean, it's quite deep, this question. It's like ethics and Aristotle. The wind blew my hand. You don't hold him … well, I'll save my depth for later.

Roberts: Finish your question.

Breyer: I'm not sure I want to.

>> "We'll have further questions."

(Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, argued Oct. 8)

After only two questions and brief silence from the bench, Stanford Law School's Pamela Karlan said: Well, if no one has any further questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.

Roberts: Well, I think we'll have further questions.

U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi / NLJ

>> "I don't think it's that close."

(R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, argued Oct. 8)

U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco: I'd like to make three basic points aimed at basically addressing Justice Gorsuch's comment that this is a close textual case. And I would like to respectfully argue that I don't think it's that close for three reasons.

Gorsuch: Oh, neither side ever thinks a case is close. Judges always do, don't they?

>> "We don't usually take cases that have such limited application."

(Kansas v. Garcia, argued Oct. 16)

Gorsuch: Then why shouldn't we DIG [dismiss as improvidently granted] this case? I mean, if this is about a one-off prosecution that has no chance of recurring ever again, and, you know, I mean, I know you're vigorously defending your client, but we don't usually take cases that have such limited application.

Paul Hughes of McDermott Will & Emery, for the defendant: We would perfectly welcome a DIG, your honor. I think that would be an appropriate outcome in this case.

Gorsuch: Touche.