Law School Supreme Court Moot Sessions Carry On in Virus Era
Georgetown's Supreme Court Institute has informed lawyers who are arguing in upcoming cases—and who are serving as moot court panelists—that the moot sessions will be limited to the participants, guests of the advocate and institute staff.
March 11, 2020 at 04:38 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Update on March 12: The U.S. Supreme Court issued the following statement: "Out of concern for the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees, the Supreme Court Building will be closed to the public from 4:30 p.m. on March 12, 2020, until further notice. The Building will remain open for official business, and case filing deadlines are not extended under Rule 30.1."
Brian Goldman, a partner in the San Francisco office of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, said he can't imagine going into his first U.S. Supreme Court argument without moot court preparation by Supreme Court clinics at Georgetown and Stanford law schools.
That won't be a problem for him March 30, despite the broadening impact of the coronavirus, which is curtailing some court activity across the country and forcing law schools to cancel in-person classes or outright close. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued advisories asking lawyers to warn the court about any symptoms of the virus.
The Supreme Court justices have been mum thus far on any virus-contingency plans for the oral argument session that begins March 23, and it's exceedingly rare for the high court to cancel arguments. Supreme Court litigation clinics at Georgetown and Stanford, taking some cautionary actions, are moving forward with efforts to prepare advocates for their upcoming arguments.
Georgetown's Supreme Court Institute has informed lawyers who are arguing in upcoming cases—and who are serving as moot court panelists—that the moot courts will be limited to the participants, guests of the advocate and institute staff. There will be no student observers, according to Debbie Shrager, the institute's director.
The Georgetown institute's moot courts are typically held the week before an argument, according to Shrager, and the institute is conducting moots for one side of every case this term. Although Georgetown has moved in-person classes to online and cancelled all public events, "The law school and the university recognize the value of our program," said Shrager. "Our moot courts are private events, not public. You can only attend by invitation."
Orrick's Goldman said he has no hesitation about participating. "I'd be doing my best to avoid getting sick before a Supreme Court argument regardless, and now there's just added reason to be extra careful," he said in an interview Wednesday. "I think the universities have struck the right balance between avoiding unnecessary risk by keeping the number of people down while not compromising their missions or ability to serve the bar by cancelling altogether."
Stanford students also have moved to online courses, Goldman said. The law school has invited its immigration and Supreme Court clinic students to observe the moot courts via video.
Goldman, who is arguing the immigration case Pereida v. Barr, won't be the only advocate flying from a distance to attend a moot court at Georgetown. Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law has the first argument of the session in the consolidated military cases United States v. Briggs and United States v. Collins.
"I certainly would've understood if they had cancelled the moots," Vladeck said. "But I think we're all taking our cues from the Supreme Court on this one. As long as the court is proceeding with the March session as scheduled, those of us who are arguing have to proceed with our preparations as normally as these decidedly abnormal circumstances will allow—circumstances that may change dramatically between now and then."
For some of the advocates at the March hearings, there is no travel risk because they live or work close to Georgetown. Williams & Connolly partner Lisa Blatt, for example, is based in Washington. She will argue the case U.S. Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com right after Vladeck on March 23.
The University of Virginia School of Law is on spring break, said Daniel Ortiz, director of the Supreme Court litigation clinic. The university on Wednesday announced that classes will go online, events of more than 100 people will be cancelled, and students should remain home if possible until further notice.
"We do have one moot scheduled, but it isn't an official part of the clinic," said Ortiz, adding it may be affected by the university policy but "it's too early to tell."
No moot courts are scheduled at the Northwestern University clinic, according to director Sarah Schrup, who works with Sidley Austin lawyers. "We're doing training today on how to teach classes remotely," she said. "Appellate law is totally fine to do remotely. We haven't cancelled anything but have the option to do so."
Although there are no moot courts, Schrup said there are planned guest speakers and the law school is scheduled to host the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces on April 9. The court will hear cases that day, including amicus arguments by students.
"They say they're still coming. That's the message from the court," Schrup said. "We're waiting to hear from the university president, so we're in a holding pattern."
The advocates themselves sounded curious about what the Supreme Court may do, if anything, about the March arguments. If past is prologue, the justices, traditionally reluctant to cancel arguments, will move forward with the hearings as scheduled. Whether the public will be able to view those arguments in the courtroom is a looming question.
Most recently, the justices in 2018 delayed arguments by one day to mark the national day of mourning for President George H.W. Bush. That triggered a rare Thursday argument. However, their steadfastness was on display in 1996 when they held arguments despite a massive snowstorm that shut down the rest of the federal government, and in 2012 during Hurricane Sandy, they held argument on one day, closed the next argument day and reopened for a Thursday argument.
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 AllScammers Target Lawyers Across Country With Fake Court Notices
Judge Cannon Says She Has No Relationship With Trump and Won't Step Down From Attempted Assassination Case
State, Federal Courts in North Carolina Announce Reopening Dates Following Hurricane Helene
Many Judges Earn Less Than Lawyers: Texas Judiciary Asks for 30% Raise
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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