Neal Katyal returns to the U.S. Supreme Court lectern today, for the 39th time, and he offered his views on advocacy the other night on MSNBC, where he's now a regular commentator. Plus: a D.C. judge recently acquitted a Supreme Court protester—more on that below. And scroll down for a snapshot of what one prominent appellate advocate was making at his Big Law firms—a glimpse that only a nominee disclosure form can provide. Thanks for reading Supreme Court Brief. Contact us at [email protected] and [email protected], and follow us on Twitter at @Tonymauro and @MarciaCoyle.

Katyal Talks Supreme Court Advocacy… and His Indian Wedding

Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal (above)is arguing today in McDonough v. Smith, an important civil rights Section 1983 case.

Most advocates would be biting their nails or pacing the floor with a Supreme Court argument looming. But Katyal made time Monday night to talk about what it's like to argue before the Supreme Court. He spoke on MSNBC's program The Beat hosted by Ari Melber, where Katyal has a regular segment titled Opening Arguments.

There was much talk about the upcoming Mueller report and other matters, so Katyal did not have much time to talk about Supreme Court advocacy. But here's what he said:

>> “In 36 hours, I'll be arguing my 39th case before there. And I wish actually that all Americans could see the Supreme Court in action … because it really is the one branch of our government that works.”

>> “So an oral argument at the Supreme Court is now only a half hour per side. It used to be nine days, back at the founding, the days when Daniel Webster argued, it went on and on. But now it's a half hour compressed. Like my Indian wedding was three days, the traditional Hindu wedding was since compressed to 28 minutes.”

>> “I get about 70 questions—seven zero—in any oral argument. And so what I'm doing now is really just preparing for, with moot courts, trying to prepare for rapid fire questions. They bring their A game every day and it's pretty disconcerting sometimes for an advocate to face all those questions.” Jeffrey Wall, principal deputy solicitor general, will argue today for the Justice Department as a friend-of-the-court supporting reversal, and Thomas O'Connor of the Albany's Napierski, VanDenburgh, Napierski & O'Connor will argue for the respondent, Youel Smith, a prosecutor in New York.

Protester on SCOTUS Steps Wins Acquittal

For the first time in recent years, federal charges against a protester arrested on the Supreme Court steps have been dismissed.

Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson last month granted a motion for acquittal filed by Manijeh Saba, a 72-year-old Iranian-American woman who was arrested in January during a protest against torture and the United States involvement in Guantanamo prison and Yemen.

Saba and four other individuals held up a banner stating “We Target, We Torture, We Terrify: Who Are We?” She and another participant were charged with violating 40 USC 6135, which prohibits “processions and assemblages” on Supreme Court grounds, or banners “designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization or movement.”

Robinson (at left) did not issue a written ruling on the case, but Saba's lawyer Mark Goldstone said the judge stated in court that the sign displayed by Saba did not refer to “a party, organization or movement.”

Goldstone said three other protesters were taken to D.C. Superior Court, where their charges were dropped. The other protester who was processed in federal court pled guilty and was sentenced to time served. Saba chose to stand trial, which led to her acquittal.

Goldstone said in a statement, “Manijeh Saba has tirelessly advocated for First Amendment freedom of speech rights since becoming a citizen many years ago. She spoke out non-violently on the steps of the Supreme Court … She defended herself in court and her voice was heard.”

In the 2013 decision Hodge v. Talkin, district court judge Beryl Howell declared that the law barring protests on Supreme Court grounds was unconstitutionally overbroad and “irreconcilable with the First Amendment.” In 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned that ruling.

When Landau Landed at Quinn, from Kirkland…

Our colleagues have kept close tabs on comings and goings from Big Law the past couple of years—the revolving door spins, of course, for any administration. The movement of lawyers—political hires and political appointees—gives us a glimpse into client matters and compensation.

The latest: Supreme Court advocate Christopher Landau, a former Kirkland & Ellis appellate leader, appears to have taken a substantial pay cut when he moved to Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan last year, as reported by Mike Scarcella.

Landau, the Trump administration's pick for U.S. ambassador to Mexico, reported on his financial disclosure form receiving $3 million in Quinn Emanuel partner share, compared to $11 million from Kirkland and an international subsidiary. Landau, who first made partner at Kirkland in 1995, clerked for Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Landau hasn't yet appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he's sure to face questions there about his qualifications for the post and about the Trump administration's moves to restrict asylum—efforts that are tied up in the courts right now. Landau, who was born in Madrid, is fluent in Spanish—and he's the son of a longtime diplomat, the late George W. Landau, who held various U.S. ambassador posts over the years.

Chris Landau probably won't be asked about his Big Law movement—but we can hope! Read the full story here at NLJ.

Supreme Court Headlines: What We're Reading

>> Guns, Violence, Gorsuch in Spotlight in Supreme Court Dispute. “The government wants violent criminals off the street. Defendants want laws that make clear what's illegal. Arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in a consequential criminal case on Wednesday could give clues about which side will win the dispute implicating those arguably competing ends.” [Bloomberg Law]

>> Supreme Court Lets New York, Illinois Nuclear Power Subsidies Stand. “The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away challenges to state-mandated subsidies for nuclear power generators, declining to hear certiorari petitions filed by Donald Verrilli on behalf of the Electric Power Supply Association.” [Reuters] Read Verrilli's petitions here and here.

>> Should Federal Courts Continue Misconduct Investigations of Former Judges? ”The Judicial Councils should not have construed their statutory mandate as narrowly as they did in the Kozinski, Kavanaugh, and Barry cases. Now that they have, Congress should fix the problem by clarifying that a Judicial Council retains the authority to continue a misconduct investigation of a judge alleged to have acted improperly, even after he or she is no longer on the court where the alleged misconduct occurred,” Cornell Law's Michael Dorf writes.