Welcome back to Supreme Court Brief. We're monitoring for the possibility of orders this morning, and the justices will hear two cases—a maritime case involving personal injury damages and a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action. We take a look below at Justice Clarence Thomas's recent talk at Mercer law school, and we have a quick spotlight on the new documentary “Slay the Dragon,” which examines partisan gerrymandering—long vexing to the justices. Tips and feedback are welcome—contact us at [email protected] and[email protected], and follow us on Twitter @Tonymauro and @MarciaCoyle. Thanks for reading!

After Voicing a Narrow View of Sixth Amendment, Thomas Praises Right to Counsel

On February 27, Justice Clarence Thomas caused consternation with the latest in his series of assertions that longstanding precedents need to be re-examined. In a dissent in Garza v. Idaho Thomas, joined only by Justice Neil Gorsuch, questioned Gideon v. Wainwright, the 1963 ruling that gave indigent defendants the right to be aided by state-appointed counsel.

In the dissent, Thomas asserted that the Sixth Amendment only guaranteed defendants the right to hire counsel themselves or to be assisted by volunteers. The Sixth Amendment, he said, was not viewed by the founders as “a guarantee of government-funded counsel” for defendants, or an assurance of an “error-free trial or even a reliable result.” He also urged his colleagues to “proceed with caution” before expanding ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standards.

Thomas is usually not one who walks back his pronouncements. But he seemed to be singing a somewhat different tune on March 11, when he gave a talk at Mercer University School of Law on the occasion of dedicating a courtroom in honor of noted alumni Griffin Bell and Frank Jones.

What follows are some excerpts:

>> “Here in the courtroom lawyers advocate for their clients and uphold the rule of law. Take, for example, the constitutional rights secured to criminal defendants.”

>> “Under the Fifth Amendment, our Constitution requires that only grand juries may indict individuals and that legal process will be followed before depriving someone of life, liberty, or property. And under the Sixth Amendment, our Constitution mandates that individuals be fully informed of the charges against them, that they be allowed counsel to assist in their defense, that they be tried by a neutral jury instead of a judge, and that they have the right to compel witnesses, and to cross-examine their accusers.”

>> “Let me add that I came of age when these rules were not fairly and honestly applied. And when constitutional protections were routinely denied members of my race, it is a glaring contradiction, having a rules-based society that applies those rules unequally. It must be resolved. For a house divided against itself cannot stand, and there cannot be two worlds or two legal codes. There will either be one code for all or none for any.”

Gerrymandering Hits Screen in 'Slay the Dragon'

The producers of the Academy Award nominated films, RBG, Green Book and Roma—all issues-oriented entertainment—have a new subject on their movie reels and a timely one from the perspective of SCOTUS watchers: Partisan gerrymandering.

This week at the Supreme Court marks the return of partisan gerrymandering to the argument docket with three cases, two from North Carolina—Rucho v. Common Cause, and Rucho v. League of Women Voters—and a replay of Lamone v. Benisek, which arose from Maryland.

Roughly one month after the arguments, and perhaps as the justices are still working out how to decide whether or when partisan gerrymandering violates the Constitution, a new documentary film on partisan gerrymandering by Participant Media premieres April 27 at the Tribeca Film Festival.

Participant Media is a film and television company founded to create positive social change through “the power of a good story well told.” One of its earliest successes was the climate change film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” The company also was behind a second film about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—”On the Basis of Sex.”

The new film “Slay the Dragon” traces the origins of partisan gerrymandering and follows two stories: grassroots activists in Michigan as they attempt to get onto the state ballot a question to create an independent bipartisan redistricting commission in order to break the bonds of partisan gerrymandering, and the partisan gerrymander challenge to Wisconsin's state legislative map, the challenge that reached the Supreme Court last term.

Paul Smith, vice president of legal strategy at the Campaign Legal Center, who argued on behalf of the Wisconsin challengers, is featured in several parts of the new documentary, and so too are the center's Ruth Greenwood and Nick Stephanopoulis of the University of Chicago Law School.

The film's producers say it “lays out how gerrymandering happens, what effects it has, and how it can be remedied. It also features a shockingly honest interview with political consultant Chris Jankowski, the chief architect Project REDMAP, the GOP's pivotal—and ultimately successful—2010 effort to redraw maps in their favor.”

It's uncertain the justices will watch, but a good bet that a number of SCOTUS watchers will want to see it.

Supreme Court Headlines: What We're Reading

• Justice Kavanaugh to Join Faculty at George Mason's Scalia Law School. “Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh will be joining the faculty of George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School as a distinguished visiting professor. Kavanaugh will be co-teaching a two-credit summer course in England from July through August. The class, titled 'Creation of the Constitution,' focuses on 'the origins and creation of the U.S. Constitution.'” [Politico]

• Garland Dishes SCOTUS Humor as DC Circuit Goes to School. A history lesson from D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Merrick Garland drew laughter at Georgetown University Law Center. “Apparently serving on the U.S. Supreme Court just isn't what it's cracked up to be,” Garland said at one point, according to our colleague Ellis Kim. [NLJ]

• Democratic Presidential Candidates Should Promise to Appoint This Kind of Judge to the Federal Courts. “By reviewing the Senate Judiciary Committee Questionnaires for all of Trump's 143 confirmed or pending judicial nominees who have submitted one (a handful of recent nominees have not), I learned that not one has worked full-time as a state or federal public defender,” writes Kyle Barry, senior legal counsel at the Justice Collaborative. [Slate]

• Justice Clarence Thomas Asked a Question for the First Time in 3 Years—Here's Why. “Thomas has narrowly interpreted the protections of a 1986 milestone decision, Batson v. Kentucky, intended to prevent prosecutors from using peremptory challenges to strike potential jurors based on their race.” [CNN]

• Kavanaugh Went Up to the Line That Sotomayor Crossed. “The justices should be careful about naming politicians, especially when they name in order to make a point about the political process,” Josh Blackman writes. [The Atlantic]

• Packing the Supreme Court Is a Terrible Idea. Here's a Compromise. “Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) declared earlier this week his intention to introduce a constitutional amendment to limit the number of Supreme Court justices to nine. That's a great move—one that will help entrench judicial independence. But since Democrats are unlikely to approve such a measure, he should be open to some amendments that could entice them to support his core principle: creating a constitutional limit on the number of justices, even if it means raising the number of appointments on the bench. [The Washington Post]