Garland Dishes SCOTUS Humor as DC Circuit Goes to School
The special session was part of the appeals court's revival of “circuit riding”—a throwback to the nation's early years when justices were required to preside over cases in federal circuit courts, often criss-crossing the country by horse.
March 22, 2019 at 04:23 PM
4 minute read
Even Judge Merrick Garland had time to crack U.S. Supreme Court jokes during a hearing, winking at his denied nomination to the nation's highest court.
The comments came during a sitting of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at Georgetown Law, where Chief Judge Garland and Judges Sri Srinivasan and A. Raymond Randolph heard two cases. The special session was part of the appeals court's revival of “circuit riding,” a throwback to the nation's early years when justices were required to preside over cases in federal circuit courts, often crisscrossing the country by horse.
Garland told students that justices detested the practice—so much so that Chief Justice John Jay left the role for a governorship in 1795, and later turned down an offer to return to the bench, in part because he couldn't continue on with riding circuit.
“Apparently serving on the U.S. Supreme Court just isn't what it's cracked up to be,” Garland said Thursday, to a roomful of laughing students. Even Srinivasan let out a laugh.
Garland noted another jurist, Thomas Johnson, abandoned the bench partly over his distaste for circuit riding. (Johnson is considered to hold the record for the shortest tenure at the Supreme Court.) That made “two people who didn't think serving on the Supreme Court was all that,” Garland said, again to laughter.
Thanks to Garland, the D.C. Circuit has enjoyed its own modern-day, and more modest, version of riding the circuit. Since 2013, the appeals court has made it a habit of holding a special sitting each term at one of the district's law schools.
After Thursday's arguments, the chief judge said he revived the tradition with the idea of bringing the court's work to D.C. residents and students. He noted it's “not always easy” for law students to go to Washington's federal courthouse.
Since then, the court has visited all six of the district's law schools, which also include Howard University, the Catholic University of America, George Washington University, the University of the District of Columbia and American University. Thursday's visit to Georgetown marked the court's second time there.
The first set of arguments Thursday centered around the denial of a man's bid to withdraw his guilty plea. He was indicted in 2015 on a child pornography charge.
The second case featured UPS Ground Freight Inc.'s legal spat with the National Labor Relations Board over union elections, a case that has drawn interest from business groups.
The judges asked their usual questions from a wooden dais that bore the D.C. Circuit's seal. They were seated before a rich blue curtain backdrop, instead of the more muted walls at the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse.
Only a few feet separated the judges' dais from the attorneys' lectern and counsel tables, but the tight quarters didn't seem to fluster the lawyers.
Garland said a reception with students often follows the special sessions. Judges will mingle with students, though they'll steer clear of discussing cases.
Georgetown Law Dean William Treanor, who introduced the panel Thursday, said after the event that the school was pleased the D.C. Circuit was back at Georgetown's campus, where the court's first special session was held.
He called it a “privilege for students” to see the court's work there, and noted that admitted students were also touring the campus Thursday. He said he couldn't “imagine a better introduction to the law” than the morning's arguments.
The D.C. Circuit isn't alone in its “circuit riding” reboot. Other federal appeals courts—including the Fourth, Ninth and Fifth circuits—have similarly traveled to law schools.
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
© 2025 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 All4th Circuit Revives Racial Harassment Lawsuit Against North Carolina School District
3 minute readFenwick and Baker & Hostetler Add DC Partners, as Venable and Brownstein Hire Policy Advisers
2 minute readDOJ, 10 State AGs File Amended Antitrust Complaint Against RealPage and Big Landlords
4 minute readSpecial Counsel Jack Smith Prepares Final Report as Trump Opposes Its Release
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1President-Elect Donald Trump Sentenced to Unconditional Discharge
- 2JCPenney Customer's Slip-and-Fall From Bodily Substance Suit Best Left for a Jury to Decide, Judge Rules
- 3Products Liability: The Absence of Other Similar Claims—a Defense or a Misleading Effort to Sway a Jury?
- 4529 Accounts Are Not Your Divorce Piggybank
- 5Meta Hires Litigation Strategy Chief, Tapping King & Spalding Partner Who Was Senior DOJ Official in First Trump Term
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