The justices heard arguments in some notable cases this month, from abortion to gun rights in just the first week. It’s been pretty exciting. The new seating arrangement for the press puts us directly behind arguing counsel; such an improvement after years of being sidelined into a cramped alcove behind two rows of reporters. That’s Nina Totenberg in the foreground, and you can just spy Joan Biskupic on the far right in red.
As usual, I’m late in posting these. I have an aversion to looking at my drawings once they’re done, at least for awhile. It’s always such a struggle, and there’s never enough time, that it’s hard to be satisfied. If that sounds like false modesty it’s just temporary . . . The drawings aren’t bad. I’m just trying to excuse my laziness in publishing them.
On October first, at the investiture ceremony for Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the new Supreme Court, with the exception of Justice Kavanaugh had recently tested positive for COVID-19, assembled on the bench for the first time.
The new term began as usual on the first Monday in October but with Kavanaugh still absent from the bench but participating remotely by telephone.
Here are the sketches from October’s arguments:
By the second week of arguments Kavanaugh was back to participating in person.
Next Monday, November first, the justices will hear arguments in two expedited cases on Texas’ new law, SB8, enforcing abortion restrictions by bounty, and on Wednesday comes a Second Amendment appeal of New York’s gun carry law. It promises to be an interesting term for the new Court.
. . . for a most unusual SCOTUS term. And, while I hate to admit it, it’s been kinda fun sketching at home from photos of lawyers arguing their case in more casual settings. It will be interesting to return to the courtroom, as expected, in the fall.
Here are the last sketches from this term, April’s arguments plus the one in early May. I’ll probably do a couple more banners between now and when the last opinion is announced. That’s it, I hope, till October in-person.
Amy M. Saharia for petitioners
Jeffrey Fisher, joined by students from Stanford’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, arguing on behalf of Michael Gary.
Daniel L. Geyser for petitioners
Robert N. Hochman for petitioner
Matthew M. Wolf for respondents
Aimee A. Feinberg, California Deputy Solicitor General
Derek L. Shafer for petitioners
Bradley N. Garcia, appointed by the Court
Peter D. Keisler for petitioners
Matthew W. Morrison for private respondents
Lisa S. Blatt for petitioner
Jeremy M. Feigenbaum, New Jersey State Solicitor
Andrew L. Adler for petitioner
The justices, all now fully vaccinated, recently sat for an official portrait. The SCOTUSblog banner above was based on that photo. Interestingly another photo taken at the same time shows a wider view of the room including a portrait of Chief Justice Roger Taney, author of the infamous Dred Scott opinion. I originally had included the Taney portrait — see below — but was persuaded that it might be confusing.
Late as lately usual, here are some sketches from the March arguments which continue to be heard remotely by telephone. Just in time for the April sitting beginning Monday.
Joshua P. Thompson for petitioners
California Solicitor General Michael J. Mongan
Eric R. Henkel, appointed by the Court
Shay Dvoretzky for petitioner
Kannon K. Shanmugam for petitioners
Samuel Issacharoff for respondent
Jeffery L. Kessler for respondents
Other than the Arizona voting case it was a pretty quiet calendar for the SCOTUS February sitting. This month will be pretty much the same, but April looks to pick up the pace. And I’m getting fat and lazy.
Neal K. Katyal for respondent
David J. Zimmer for respondent
Jeffrey Fisher, with law students, arguing for petitioner
Samuel T. Harbourt, California Deputy Solicitor General
Amanda K. Rice, Court-appointed amicus in support of judgement below
Mark A. Perry arguing for Smith & Nephew, Inc. in Arthrex
Jessica R. Amunson for repondent Secretary Hobbs
Sarah M. Harris for petitioners
Fencing surrounds SCOTUS following mob attack on capitol.
January was a little crazy here in DC so maybe I’ll be forgiven for forgetting to post these sketches in a timely manner. Fewer cases than usual were on the calendar, and arguments continued to be heard remotely by telephone.
Paul W. Hughes for respondents
Andrew A. Pinson for respondents
Kristen K. Waggoner for petitioners
Joel R. Marcus arguing for FTC
Kannon K. Shanmugam for petitioners
Victor M. Sher for respondents