Good morning and welcome to Supreme Court Brief. Since the end of the term, the justices have been busy with emergency applications involving the death penalty and voting rights. We pause for a look back at the lawyers who argued the most cases during the term. We also look forward to next term—petitions confronting abortion rights and the Second Amendment await the justices' review. Plus: treat yourself to Slate's marvelous oral history of the women in the Harvard Law Class of '59, including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Thanks for reading, and your feedback is welcome and appreciated. Contact Marcia Coyle at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter @MarciaCoyle.

The Lawyers Who Argued the Most Cases This Past Term

Most lawyers consider it a career or lifetime highlight to argue just one case in the Supreme Court. During the 2019-2020 term, 30 lawyers argued two or more cases, roughly one-third of the total number of advocates making their arguments.

Of those 30 lawyers, 12 scored three or more arguments—fewer than the 15 in the October 2018 term and 17 in the October 2017 term, according to term statistics compiled by Empirical SCOTUS and SCOTUSblog.

Not surprisingly, lawyers from the U.S. solicitor general's office dominated the three or more argument category. Former Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who has since returned to Jones Day, topped the list with 7 arguments; then-Principal Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall had five arguments, and Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart had four. Wall is now serving as the acting U.S. solicitor.

Breaking into the top 12 were three lawyers from private firms: Kirkland & Ellis partner Paul Clement (6), Williams & Connolly partner Lisa Blatt (3) and McDermott Will & Emery partner Paul Hughes (3).

All but Hughes had had experience in the solicitor general's office, and of the 30, all but seven had worked in the SG's office in the past.

The 30 lawyers arguing two or more cases last term came from 11 private firms, two state solicitors general's offices (Louisiana's Elizabeth Murrill and Kansas's Toby Crouse), the U.S. House (Douglas Letter), and Stanford Law's Supreme Court clinic (Jeffrey Fisher). In addition to the three firms mentioned above, the other firms were: Goodwin Procter (Brian Burgess); Jones Day (Shay Dvoretzky); Hogan Lovells (Neal Katyal); Latham & Watkins (Roman Martinez); Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (Theodore Olson); Morrison & Foerster (Joseph Palmore); Jenner & Block (Adam Unikowsky), and Munger, Tolles & Olson (Donald Verrilli Jr.).

The number of law firms represented by advocates making two or more arguments has remained fairly consistent over the last three terms.

There also were 11 in the October 2018, with standout appearances by Clement, Daniel Geyser of Alexander Dubose & Jefferson and then-Williams & Connolly partner Kannon Shanmugam (now at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison) with four arguments apiece, and David Frederick of Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick with five. —Marcia Coyle

Abortion Rights and Guns Redux Next Term?

Abortion rights and gun petitions are never far from the Supreme Court's door. After disposing of the Louisiana abortion clinic case and the New York City gun regulation case last term, the justices will have an opportunity this fall to decide whether they want to weigh in again on those contentious issues.

Kirkland & Ellis partner Paul Clement, whose challenge to the New York City regulation was dismissed as moot, is back with a petition in Zoie H. v. Nebraska, a somewhat unusual Second Amendment case.

A 2018 Nebraska law bars possession of a firearm until age 25 by anyone adjudicated by a juvenile court to have committed certain offenses. Juvenile adjudications are civil, not criminal proceedings, and there is no right to a jury trial. The Nebraska Supreme Court rejected Zoie's argument and concluded that the prohibition was a collateral consequence of the civil adjudication, not punishment.

"The state cannot deprive the accused of her constitutional right to a jury trial on the rationale that this is just a juvenile proceeding, and then tell an adult that she has no Second Amendment right to keep and bears arms because of the result of a bench trial," Clement wrote in his petition. "The state cannot disregard both constitutional guarantees. Worse still, the reasoning of the decision below would allow juveniles to be disenfranchised from exercising all manner of constitutional rights well into their adult years, as long as the disenfranchisement was a collateral consequence of a separate statute rather than part of the sentence for the offense."

The state's response by counsel Nebraska Solicitor General James Campbell is due August 6.

Meanwhile, the Center for Reproductive Rights, which successfully argued the Louisiana clinic case, June Medical Center v. Russo, is also back—but this time as the respondent, not the petitioner.

In the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Mississippi Special Assistant Attorney General Paul Barnes asks the court to grant review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit striking down the state's ban on abortions after 15 weeks, except for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormalities.

Mississippi wants the justices to decide whether all previability abortion prohibitions are unconstitutional. The state argues the viability standard "eviscerates a state's ability to account for advances in medical and scientific technology."

The medical community consensus is that viability typically begins at 23-24 weeks after the pregnant woman's last menstrual period.

The Fifth Circuit panel, in an opinion by Judge Patrick Higginbotham, said, "In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and re-affirmed) a woman's right to choose an abortion before viability. States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman's right but they may not ban abortions."

Barnes, however, tells the justices: "If the court cannot reconcile Roe and Casey with other precedents or scientific advancements showing a compelling interest in fetal life far earlier in pregnancy than those cases contemplate, the court should not retain erroneous precedent."

The Center's Hillary Schneller is counsel to Jackson Women's Health Organization. Her response to the petition is due August 9. —Marcia Coyle

Supreme Court Headlines: What We're Reading

'It's Amazing to Me How Distinctly I Remember Each of These Women.' "Ruth Bader Ginsburg reflects on her nine female classmates at Harvard Law School and the divergent paths their lives all took from there." [Slate]

Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch: A Term Like No Other. "Although OT 2020 won't officially start (presumably remotely) until the first Monday in October, the new clerks are already 'arriving' and starting their work (also remotely)." [Above the Law]

MacArthur Appellate Group Adds Ex-SCOTUS Clerks From Big Law. "The MacArthur Justice Center has poached two ex-high court clerks from Big Law for its Supreme Court and appellate practice that's won a string of civil rights and criminal justice victories since launching four years ago. Easha Anand (at left), who clerked for Justice Sonia Sotomayor and came from Orrick, and Devi Rao, who clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and came from Jenner & Block, joined the civil rights law firm's Supreme Court & Appellate Program." [Bloomberg Law]

A Timely Case on Police Violence at the Supreme Court. "The justices may have wanted to duck the question of police violence. The case from Albuquerque, Torres v. Madrid, No. 19-292, will force them to confront it." [NYT]

Belated Ginsburg cancer disclosure renews focus on SCOTUS transparency. "The five-month delay that preceded Ginsburg's statement Friday was just the latest episode to prompt concern among court watchers that the justices are being too opaque about their health." [Politico]

Roberts is the swing justice, but he's not becoming more liberal. "But when he does swing, it will likely be political and institutional factors, not a shift in his ideology, that guide his vote. And that means liberals really can't rely on him to rule their way in the future." [FiveThirtyEight]

Roberts's power hinges on Trump's re-election. "Roberts is a savvy operator on the court no matter its makeup. Still, he remains in the central position so long as the justices a reelected Trump would replace are conservatives or the ones a President Biden would replace are liberals. [The Washington Post]