Bloomberg Law’s latest documentary, “Supreme Advocacy: What It Takes to Argue at the Supreme Court,” directed by Andrew Satter, takes the viewer behind the scenes of Supreme Court litigation. It features Roman Martinez, a partner at Latham & Watkins, who has argued in front of the Supreme Court 16 times. The film follows Martinez as he prepares for A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case centered on educational accommodations under federal disability discrimination laws. Despite its engaging style, the documentary opts for a surface-level exploration of the legal intricacies involved.
The documentary opens with visuals of courtroom demonstrations, effectively setting the stage for the gravity of cases that reach the nation’s highest court. Notable journalist Nina Totenberg underscores how varied and impactful the Court’s docket can be. However, the film shifts focus from broader societal impacts to a portrait of Martinez, a charismatic figure with impressive credentials, including a Yale Law School degree and a clerkship with Chief Justice John Roberts. Yet, the narrative glosses over some of the more compelling aspects of his background, such as his role in advising on the Iraqi constitution and details from previous Supreme Court arguments, such as Relentless v. Department of Commerce.
A.J.T. comes into sharper focus through a Star Tribune headline that lays out the case’s stakes: Ava Tharpe, suffering from epilepsy, faces reduced accommodations from her school district. The film highlights the emotional weight of her parents’ fight, although it stops short of exploring the nuanced legal standards at play. Such omissions may leave legal professionals wanting a deeper dive into the intricacies of appellate advocacy.
The film does well to outline the procedural journey from the petition for review to oral arguments, offering a glimpse into the strategic maneuvering behind the scenes. It captures the long hours, iterative preparations, and the importance of amicus briefs, emphasizing the collaborative effort necessary for Supreme Court litigation. However, it falters by not delving into the substantive legal arguments, leaving number-crunching and case law analysis largely untouched.
In terms of personal storytelling, the documentary offers an intimate look at Martinez’s family life and heritage, portraying him as both a legal titan and a relatable figure. Scenes with family decor, such as a humorous “Honest Lawyer” pillow, humanize a lawyer often steeped in complex litigation. Martinez’s pre-argument routines and interactions with his team add a personal touch, contributing to the film’s charm even as it skims over some substantial elements.
The climax, Martinez’s 9-0 victory at the Supreme Court, affirms his advocacy prowess but again is framed in a simplified narrative. The oral argument scenes illustrate key moments—like the intriguing exchange with the opposing counsel—but fail to unpack the legal principles underlying the justices’ queries. Lizzy Prelogar’s quirks and humorous moments interspersed throughout offer light-hearted relief, yet they underline the documentary’s core issue: an entertaining package that stops short of substantial illumination.
“Supreme Advocacy” vividly portrays the personal and procedural aspects of Supreme Court advocacy, but its commitment to style over substance leaves legal professionals yearning for a fuller exploration of its topics.