The new argument format of the Supreme Court has been causing discomfort among advocates due to its extended duration, revealed Daniel Geyser, Chair of the Supreme Court Practice at Haynes and Boone. According to Geyser, the revised format is such that the first case argued tends to run considerably longer than the subsequent ones. This stands as a challenge, especially for the lawyers handling the latter proceedings of the day as they have to face justices with limited attention spans and signs of fatigue. In his own words, Geyser admitted, “Next time, when I’m second under the new format, I will start the morning with more coffee and a bigger breakfast. I might try to hide a banana in the court locker.“
Geyser’s statements reflect a broader issue touched upon by UCLA Law Professor and SCOTUS scholar Adam Winkler. Winkler shared his sympathy for the advocates who have to go last in the proceedings under the new format, citing that they have to deal with tired justices who might not be at their best when it comes to attention spans. Both Geyser and Winkler’s assertions raise a calling for a re-look at the new structure to ensure the absolute effectiveness of Supreme Court hearings. Their words were captured in an interview that can be viewed in full at Bloomberg Law.
From instituting a better morning routine to sneaking a quick meal, the advocates’ search for ways to adapt to the new format reflects the current need for revisions or at least, breaks between these extended arguments. The high stakes and complex legal issues that these Supreme Court arguments represent make it all the more crucial that the justices, and the advocates, operate at the maximum of their abilities.
More on this issue can be found on Above the Law.