It’s the second week of the new term at the Supreme Court, with two somewhat standard cases set for argument. This week brings some notable highlights, however, as Tuesday sees the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s son, Eugene Scalia, making his maiden appearance before the high court in Murray v. UBS Securities LLC. As described in the original SCOTUSblog post, Scalia represents one defendant, an investment banking firm in a whistleblowing case under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Beyond normal trial proceedings, the occasion unfolds under the watchful eyes of Maureen Scalia, the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s wife, and former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, who’s attending not as a part of the case but as a spectator. Among the onlookers, there is also an appreciable presence of multi-generational members from the Scalia family.
As reported by Bloomberg Law, it’s a seldom occurrence for a child of a serving or former justice to argue before the Supreme Court. However, having a former Cabinet member—the position Eugene Scalia held under President Donald Trump’s presidency—appear and argue is a first in recent memory.
On the opposing side, the law firm representing the whistleblower, Trevor Murray, is the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. Attorney Easha Anand, who is also making her first high court argument, is representing the firm. Complicating her day, an initial misunderstanding over positioning at the lectern creates some confusion. Anthony Yang, an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General arguing in support of Murray, soon steps in to elucidate the tradition that the Solicitor General’s office always argues from the right side of the lectern.
In the courtroom, Chief Justice John G. Roberts calls upon Eugene Scalia to introduce a new lawyer, an incident that rings true to the memory of his father Justice Scalia. As the trial progresses through 90 minutes on the statutory question under Sarbanes-Oxley, it’s clear that both the lawyers are prepared and manage to argue their points effectively.
The second case, Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raider Retreat Realty Co., concerns the “choice-of-law” clause in a maritime contract under federal admiralty law, a case that brings a nautical touch to the otherwise workaday court proceedings. The tableau is not lost on Justice Clarence Thomas, himself under scrutiny for not disclosing yacht travel, as he ventures into playful banter with the advocates, ultimately punctuating the room with his hearty laughter.