1
00:00:00,760 --> 00:00:05,080
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:05,920 --> 00:00:09,119
Speaker 1: There's something new with the Supreme Court this term. Lawyers

3
00:00:09,119 --> 00:00:11,480
Speaker 1: now get two minutes at the start of their arguments

4
00:00:11,520 --> 00:00:14,840
Speaker 1: to state their case before the justices jump in and

5
00:00:14,880 --> 00:00:19,280
Speaker 1: start tearing their theories apart. Justice Sonia Sotomayor forgot about

6
00:00:19,320 --> 00:00:22,120
Speaker 1: that two minute rule. At one of the terms early arguments,

7
00:00:22,520 --> 00:00:25,880
Speaker 1: Paul Hughes was just thirty six seconds into his argument

8
00:00:25,880 --> 00:00:29,120
Speaker 1: in a case at the intersection of criminal law and immigration.

9
00:00:29,840 --> 00:00:33,680
Speaker 1: If this element is not present, there is no preemption.

10
00:00:33,760 --> 00:00:37,040
Speaker 1: If they were applying to a college I'm sorry. You

11
00:00:37,080 --> 00:00:40,519
Speaker 1: can answer that question after your time. I'm sorry, Thank you.

12
00:00:41,000 --> 00:00:45,360
Speaker 1: Jordan Reuben, Bloomberg Law editor, joins me. Now, let's start

13
00:00:45,440 --> 00:00:47,840
Speaker 1: by talking about what it was like before the two

14
00:00:47,880 --> 00:00:50,919
Speaker 1: minute rule, when attorneys would get up to argue, barely

15
00:00:50,920 --> 00:00:55,720
Speaker 1: say a sentence and be interrupted by one of the justices. Right, So,

16
00:00:56,040 --> 00:00:59,480
Speaker 1: going back to most people trace this back to justice

17
00:00:59,480 --> 00:01:02,920
Speaker 1: school is coming onto the court in the mid eighties.

18
00:01:03,320 --> 00:01:07,399
Speaker 1: Really up through until very recently, the typical way an

19
00:01:07,520 --> 00:01:10,440
Speaker 1: argument would go is that an advocate would have a

20
00:01:10,480 --> 00:01:14,840
Speaker 1: difficult time really getting their argument out before being bombarded,

21
00:01:15,120 --> 00:01:17,679
Speaker 1: not just from Justice Scalia, but from really all of

22
00:01:17,720 --> 00:01:20,480
Speaker 1: the justices, or most of the justices anyway, with a

23
00:01:20,480 --> 00:01:23,560
Speaker 1: lot of questions. So lawyer is going to argue Aspreme

24
00:01:23,560 --> 00:01:26,320
Speaker 1: Court case, they know going into it that they have

25
00:01:26,360 --> 00:01:29,360
Speaker 1: to be ready to answer questions really almost from the start,

26
00:01:29,360 --> 00:01:32,040
Speaker 1: and might not have much free time to say whatever

27
00:01:32,080 --> 00:01:35,400
Speaker 1: they want. Yeah, Justice Scalia the pace center of what

28
00:01:35,440 --> 00:01:38,280
Speaker 1: they call a hot bench, which is still hot today,

29
00:01:38,319 --> 00:01:41,680
Speaker 1: but not as much laughter as when Justice Scalia was

30
00:01:41,760 --> 00:01:44,200
Speaker 1: on the bench. That's true. So now we have the

31
00:01:44,280 --> 00:01:49,040
Speaker 1: new rule giving advocates to uninterrupted minutes to speak before

32
00:01:49,040 --> 00:01:52,960
Speaker 1: the justices jump in with questions. It was unexpected. How

33
00:01:52,960 --> 00:01:55,320
Speaker 1: did it come about? So it really came out of

34
00:01:55,360 --> 00:01:59,600
Speaker 1: nowhere as far as everyone besides the justices themselves are concerned.

35
00:01:59,640 --> 00:02:01,840
Speaker 1: Right before or the start of this term, on the

36
00:02:01,880 --> 00:02:05,440
Speaker 1: first Monday of October, really right before the Court came

37
00:02:05,480 --> 00:02:08,799
Speaker 1: out with this announcement and surprised everyone, not just us

38
00:02:08,840 --> 00:02:11,720
Speaker 1: covering the court, but even the lawyers themselves. They were

39
00:02:11,800 --> 00:02:15,079
Speaker 1: told they would actually have this uninterrupted time, at least

40
00:02:15,120 --> 00:02:18,280
Speaker 1: in theory, to speak at the beginning of their arguments

41
00:02:18,320 --> 00:02:21,960
Speaker 1: without being interrupted by the justices. And now that's certainly

42
00:02:22,080 --> 00:02:24,280
Speaker 1: for the people who were about to start the arguments

43
00:02:24,320 --> 00:02:26,240
Speaker 1: in the first weeks of the term, that was a

44
00:02:26,240 --> 00:02:29,919
Speaker 1: big game change for them because they very likely prepared

45
00:02:30,040 --> 00:02:32,960
Speaker 1: going into the argument of not likely being able to

46
00:02:33,000 --> 00:02:35,840
Speaker 1: get much out by way of their own arguments, and

47
00:02:35,880 --> 00:02:39,040
Speaker 1: they were probably preparing to get peppered with questions right

48
00:02:39,080 --> 00:02:41,400
Speaker 1: from the start. So it's really a big game changer

49
00:02:41,440 --> 00:02:44,280
Speaker 1: in terms of at least how the arguments are set

50
00:02:44,400 --> 00:02:47,920
Speaker 1: up from the start. Do all the lawyers used the

51
00:02:48,000 --> 00:02:51,600
Speaker 1: two minutes in the same way to frame the main issue?

52
00:02:52,080 --> 00:02:55,640
Speaker 1: We've seen some different strategies by the lawyers in terms

53
00:02:55,639 --> 00:02:58,480
Speaker 1: of being able to frame the issue. That's really probably

54
00:02:58,560 --> 00:03:01,000
Speaker 1: the main phrase that's come up in all the lawyers

55
00:03:01,000 --> 00:03:03,959
Speaker 1: that we spoke to for this story and writing about

56
00:03:03,960 --> 00:03:06,799
Speaker 1: this new two minute rule and guidance is that they're

57
00:03:06,800 --> 00:03:09,200
Speaker 1: thankful for the opportunity to at least at the start

58
00:03:09,560 --> 00:03:11,840
Speaker 1: sort of set the table in the way that they

59
00:03:11,880 --> 00:03:15,160
Speaker 1: want to. Different lawyers have used different strategies in terms

60
00:03:15,200 --> 00:03:18,600
Speaker 1: of using not all the two minutes. Maybe they'll make

61
00:03:18,639 --> 00:03:21,000
Speaker 1: a few key points and then wave the rest of

62
00:03:21,040 --> 00:03:24,640
Speaker 1: their time. So really everyone is still feeling this new

63
00:03:24,680 --> 00:03:27,680
Speaker 1: world out, including the justices themselves. Some of whom are

64
00:03:27,720 --> 00:03:31,280
Speaker 1: having a little bit of trouble adjusting to being quiet

65
00:03:31,320 --> 00:03:33,720
Speaker 1: at the beginning of the argument. How have the justices

66
00:03:33,800 --> 00:03:36,600
Speaker 1: reacted to this? Have any of them said anything? The

67
00:03:36,640 --> 00:03:39,560
Speaker 1: main public comments that have come out so far have

68
00:03:39,680 --> 00:03:43,320
Speaker 1: been from Justice Kaigan, who, in a public talk, essentially

69
00:03:43,360 --> 00:03:45,800
Speaker 1: it seems like she's really not a big fan of

70
00:03:45,840 --> 00:03:50,560
Speaker 1: this new uninterrupted time. She actually recalled an anecdote from

71
00:03:50,560 --> 00:03:54,200
Speaker 1: when she was arguing and she was interrupted almost right

72
00:03:54,200 --> 00:03:57,760
Speaker 1: at the beginning of her argument from Justice Scalia himself,

73
00:03:57,800 --> 00:04:00,960
Speaker 1: I believe it was, And she actually reflected on that

74
00:04:01,120 --> 00:04:05,320
Speaker 1: argument almost fondly and seem to say that that's really

75
00:04:05,640 --> 00:04:09,800
Speaker 1: how it should be. Because again and many season Supreme

76
00:04:09,840 --> 00:04:13,280
Speaker 1: Court advocates who are almost skeptical of this new rule

77
00:04:13,360 --> 00:04:17,080
Speaker 1: will say that they feel most effective when they're responding

78
00:04:17,120 --> 00:04:20,480
Speaker 1: to the justices questions, as opposed to just standing there

79
00:04:20,520 --> 00:04:23,080
Speaker 1: talking and sort of just saying what they want, which

80
00:04:23,080 --> 00:04:26,239
Speaker 1: maybe will feel good, but you don't necessarily know whether

81
00:04:26,279 --> 00:04:28,680
Speaker 1: that's moving the case along in the way that you

82
00:04:28,720 --> 00:04:32,080
Speaker 1: want it to. Well, several lawyers told you that they

83
00:04:32,080 --> 00:04:34,479
Speaker 1: don't need to use all of the time, and that

84
00:04:34,600 --> 00:04:37,159
Speaker 1: struck me as odd. A lawyer who doesn't want to

85
00:04:37,160 --> 00:04:40,760
Speaker 1: talk about the case for two minutes only, right, exactly

86
00:04:40,760 --> 00:04:43,160
Speaker 1: a lawyer who whoever wants to stop talking at all, right,

87
00:04:43,440 --> 00:04:47,240
Speaker 1: and so and again this goes back to how are

88
00:04:47,240 --> 00:04:49,920
Speaker 1: you actually most effective? If you might think that you're

89
00:04:50,640 --> 00:04:52,800
Speaker 1: being the most effective when you're able to get as

90
00:04:52,839 --> 00:04:55,359
Speaker 1: many of your points out as you want, But really

91
00:04:55,400 --> 00:04:58,120
Speaker 1: the purpose of oral argument, and the purpose of the

92
00:04:58,160 --> 00:05:01,039
Speaker 1: briefing too, which happens before the argument, is to help

93
00:05:01,080 --> 00:05:04,080
Speaker 1: the justices decide the case. So you could be out

94
00:05:04,120 --> 00:05:06,960
Speaker 1: there talking for a full half hour, but if you're

95
00:05:06,960 --> 00:05:10,520
Speaker 1: not saying anything that's convincing any of the justices who

96
00:05:10,560 --> 00:05:13,279
Speaker 1: you need to convince, then you're actually really not helping

97
00:05:13,279 --> 00:05:15,680
Speaker 1: your case at all, and you're probably hurting it. And

98
00:05:16,040 --> 00:05:19,960
Speaker 1: one of the veteran Supreme Court practitioners you spoke to,

99
00:05:20,040 --> 00:05:23,760
Speaker 1: Paul Clement, said it isn't a one size fits all approach,

100
00:05:23,800 --> 00:05:26,520
Speaker 1: and he's had three arguments and used the two minutes

101
00:05:26,560 --> 00:05:30,320
Speaker 1: in three different ways. Right. So we're seeing this um

102
00:05:30,360 --> 00:05:32,960
Speaker 1: with someone like Paul Clement, but with the other lawyers too.

103
00:05:33,760 --> 00:05:37,400
Speaker 1: It's really just sort of applying normal argument principles to

104
00:05:37,480 --> 00:05:40,200
Speaker 1: this new terrain. And so it's a matter of having

105
00:05:40,200 --> 00:05:43,080
Speaker 1: a different strategy for every argument, which was true before,

106
00:05:43,480 --> 00:05:45,559
Speaker 1: but now just because you have this new time doesn't

107
00:05:45,560 --> 00:05:48,520
Speaker 1: mean you're going to use it in the same way

108
00:05:48,560 --> 00:05:52,440
Speaker 1: every time. So obviously a seasoned advocate will be able

109
00:05:52,480 --> 00:05:55,159
Speaker 1: to recognize that and know either they're going to use

110
00:05:55,200 --> 00:05:57,680
Speaker 1: their time to respond to certain points, maybe they're going

111
00:05:57,720 --> 00:06:01,240
Speaker 1: to anticipate certain counter arguments that are going to come

112
00:06:01,320 --> 00:06:04,440
Speaker 1: up later. And so, as I mentioned, everyone's really still

113
00:06:04,680 --> 00:06:07,640
Speaker 1: feeling this out, and we're seeing different lawyers use the

114
00:06:07,680 --> 00:06:10,560
Speaker 1: time differently or not at all. You know what surprised

115
00:06:10,560 --> 00:06:13,839
Speaker 1: me about this, Jordan's that there's so much fuss about it,

116
00:06:13,880 --> 00:06:17,480
Speaker 1: because I thought that lawyers would prepare as if they

117
00:06:17,480 --> 00:06:21,039
Speaker 1: were going to be uninterrupted for at least two to

118
00:06:21,120 --> 00:06:24,640
Speaker 1: three minutes anyway. But it seems to make the calculus

119
00:06:24,680 --> 00:06:28,400
Speaker 1: really different for them. Right. It's definitely not the case

120
00:06:28,560 --> 00:06:32,760
Speaker 1: that lawyers were planning on having uninterrupted time, certainly not

121
00:06:32,960 --> 00:06:36,200
Speaker 1: in in recent years by any stretch. And so it

122
00:06:36,279 --> 00:06:40,400
Speaker 1: does change the calculus in terms of if justices don't

123
00:06:40,440 --> 00:06:43,120
Speaker 1: have questions at the beginning, you certainly want to be

124
00:06:43,160 --> 00:06:44,960
Speaker 1: able to say something and it will be a little

125
00:06:45,000 --> 00:06:47,880
Speaker 1: awkward if you don't have anything to say. But it

126
00:06:47,960 --> 00:06:51,919
Speaker 1: certainly does change preparation to some extent because when people

127
00:06:51,920 --> 00:06:55,240
Speaker 1: were preparing before this rule, they were preparing to receive

128
00:06:55,320 --> 00:06:58,200
Speaker 1: questions from the start, and you know, it's still possible

129
00:06:58,200 --> 00:07:00,640
Speaker 1: that justice might jump in early. You know they're not

130
00:07:00,640 --> 00:07:03,280
Speaker 1: going to get in trouble. They're the Supreme Court justices, right,

131
00:07:03,560 --> 00:07:06,360
Speaker 1: It's nothing bad can happen to them. But you still

132
00:07:06,360 --> 00:07:09,120
Speaker 1: want to be prepared for that possibility to have a

133
00:07:09,279 --> 00:07:12,840
Speaker 1: canned speech, so to speak, just in case you're able

134
00:07:12,880 --> 00:07:15,840
Speaker 1: to use all that time, if not more. Thanks Jordan's

135
00:07:16,120 --> 00:07:20,600
Speaker 1: that's Jordan Reuben, Bloomberg Law Editor. Thanks for listening to

136
00:07:20,600 --> 00:07:23,960
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to

137
00:07:23,960 --> 00:07:27,720
Speaker 1: the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot

138
00:07:27,720 --> 00:07:32,240
Speaker 1: com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg