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.