Inside the Supreme Court: Clinic Instructors Argue Two Cases on Same Day
The U.S. Supreme Court heard two cases argued by instructors from the Law School's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic on Monday, a first for the five-year-old clinic. Professor Dan Ortiz argued Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri at 10 a.m. and clinic instructor Mark Stancil took on Fox v. Vice one hour later. The Supreme Court receives approximately 10,000 case petitions each year, and grants and hears about 75 to 80 cases. Including upcoming arguments, the clinic has landed eight cases before the Supreme Court since the course began in 2006.
Clinic student Wells Harrell offers this account of the day's events.
The Supreme Court Litigation Clinic reached a milestone on Tuesday when, for the first time in its history, the clinic argued two cases back-to-back. That morning, nearly everyone involved in this year's clinic could be seen either at counsel table or in the gallery. Current clinic participants who attended Tuesday's oral arguments wereStewart Ackerly,Steph Cagniart,Chris Cariello,Will Carlson,Martha Kidd, Sterling LeBoeuf,Brinton Lucas, Adam Milasincic,Noah Mink, Tristan Morales and myself. Also attending the arguments was one of last year's clinic participants, Sarah Robertson, who had worked on Guarnieri at the certiorari stage and is currently clerking on the 11th Circuit, as well as clinic instructors John Elwood, David Goldberg and Toby Heytens.
Some students stayed overnight in the D.C. area on Monday, but most of us made the familiar trek up U.S. 29 before dawn on Tuesday. Having tickets to observe the arguments allowed us to bypass the public line. We put our cell phones and valuables in lockers, and then checked in with the marshal. We were seated in the reserved section quickly. At 10 a.m. sharp, the marshal called the court to order, and the justices took their seats. After admitting new members to the Supreme Court Bar and announcing two opinions, the court heard arguments for the two clinic cases.
Representing the petitioner in Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, Dan Ortiz argued that the petition clause does not protect a public employee's petition about a matter of purely private concern. He quickly drew questions about whether the proper test for petition clause claims by public employees might focus on whether the petition addresses government as employer or as sovereign. In response, Dan argued that "in practice, that inquiry would not align much differently than the Connick inquiry," which asks whether a public employee's speech involves a matter of public concern.