The seemingly antiquated traditions of the U.S. Supreme Court seldom come under scrutiny, yet, recently, the Court’s argument schedule has been drawing attention for its potential unfair impact on the ‘second-in-line’ counsel of the day. A recent case paints a vivid picture of the potential adverse effects of this practice on the participating lawyers.
As reported by Bloomberg Law, Daniel Geyser, a Colorado-based attorney, faced an unexpected hunger pang when he was presented before the Court. Breakfast finished by 8:30 AM, and the caffeine effect of morning coffee faded, Geyser found himself hungry when he had to step up to the Supreme Court lectern, having underestimated the length of the case argued before his.
The justices’ format, amended after the pandemic, pushes the arguments to their new lengths, particularly in the first case of the day. This practice makes the chronology of the case listings influential in the lawyer’s performance at the lectern – a circumstance that seems to be playing out more prominently in the current era of remote court proceedings.
Geyser’s account begs the question: could a short break between cases help levitate this unforeseen disadvantage for the attorneys who argue in the second case of the day? It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will consider revising its current schedule to tackle this problem, but for now, the issue provides a unique insight into the intricacies of the high-stakes workings of the U.S. Supreme Court.