The Marble Palace Blog: Ketanji Brown Jackson and Stephen Breyer Are Friends, But They Pronounce 'Amicus' Differently
Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers said "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off" when they disagreed on how to pronounce "tomato." But Justice Breyer and Justice-to-be Jackson will surely stay friends, even though they say the Latin word for friend differently.
April 14, 2022 at 11:27 AM
4 minute read
Thank you for reading The Marble Palace Blog, which I hope will inform and surprise you about the Supreme Court of the United States. My name is Tony Mauro. I've covered the Supreme Court since 1979 and for ALM since 2000. I semiretired in 2019, but I am still fascinated by the high court. I'll welcome any tips or suggestions for topics to write about. You can reach me at [email protected].
During the laborious four days of confirmation hearings last month, Justice-to-be Ketanji Brown Jackson was applauded for the "judicial independence" she pledged to abide by.
In a small way, she already showed her independence from Justice Stephen Breyer, for whom she clerked, and the justice she will succeed.
When Jackson was asked to discuss concerns about amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, she pronounced the word amicus with a hard "AM," as in AM-uh-kuss. But she surely must have known that Breyer, an Anglophile by marriage, called it a-MY-kuss with a hard "MY," a pronunciation that is rarely uttered on this side of the Atlantic. Breyer used the British pronunciation as recently as March 23. The typical pronunciation these days is a somewhat softer sounding uh-mee-kuss. So Jackson is taking her own friendly path.
I first noticed Breyer's odd formulation in 1997, when I wrote for Legal Times about the Supreme Court argument in Lambrix v. Singletary, a habeas corpus case. More than once, Breyer asked Matthew Lawry, lawyer for the plaintiff in the case, to comment on the amicus curiae briefs that had been filed with the court.
Unsurprisingly, Breyer used the British pronunciation "a-MY-kuss" each time he mentioned the briefs. I wrote that "the hapless lawyer before [Breyer] … adopted the same, clearly incorrect pronunciation, just to be accommodating."
Much to my surprise, renowned New York Times reporter William Safire, who wrote a popular "On Language" column at the time, picked up on my article.
Safire said of Lawry's handling of the situation, "I cannot fault the solo practitioner before him for going along with the a-MY-cusses from the bench. He probably said to himself: 'I'll pronounce it any cockamamie way Breyer likes, as long as he comes down for Lambrix.' In the long history of that honorable Court, it is unlikely that any lawyer has corrected a Justice's pronunciation."
In his article, Safire also reached out to wordsmith guru Bryan Garner for advice on the pronunciation. "Justice Breyer has adopted an Anglo-Latin pronunciation," Garner responded. "It will make any Latin teacher apoplectic. But it has English and American history behind it, and that, in the end, matters more than how Cicero might have mouthed the phrase."
Lawry, now an assistant federal community defender in Philadelphia, said in an interview that he really did not think about how to pronounce amicus during the argument in 1997. "As far as any conscious thought that 'oh, that's how to pronounce it,' I really don't know," Lawry said.
Justice-to-be Jackson's next linguistic hurdle may come with the word "certiorari," another Latin word that has a rainbow of pronunciations. In 2014, Regent University law professor James Duane wrote in a whimsical study for The Green Bag legal journal that justices are "profoundly divided" over the pronunciation of certiorari, with at least seven variations. Justice Clarence Thomas' version is especially unusual, beginning with "sertzee" and continuing with something like "oh-RARE-eye."
But in the case of certiorari, there may now be something of a reprieve for the justices. For years, when Thomas announced his decisions (in summary form) from the bench, he would start off by using his version, as in "This case comes to us on a writ of certiorari" from whatever lower court came before.
But because of the pandemic, opinion announcements have not been spoken from the bench. So, uttering "certiorari" at the court is a vanishing point of interest—one of several that have withered away because of the pandemic push toward all-digital dissemination.
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 AllSenate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
Who Knocked on the Supreme Court’s Door in November?
Supreme Court Takes Up TikTok's Challenge to Upcoming Ban or Sale
Justices Wade Into South Carolina's Medicaid Fight With Planned Parenthood
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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