When Oral Argument is A Crime:
Would you like to argue a case at the United States Supreme Court? If you get the chance, you better hope that the Justices ask you lots of questions and keep interrupting you. Why? Well, check out 40 U.S.C. 6134:
It is unlawful to discharge a firearm, firework or explosive, set fire to a combustible, make a harangue or oration, or utter loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building or grounds.That's right: It's illegal to make an oration in the Supreme Court building! So be careful out there, folks.
So no smoking?
No, no candles on birthday cakes.
Did yesterday's outburst during the abortion arguments spark your interest, Orin?
I also suspect the "oration" part may violate the Right of Petition, as well as of Freedom of Speech, especially if the oration is phrased as a request for certiorari. However, IAmNotALawyer, and getting any judge (and perhaps eventually the SCOTUS) to rule that way might be a challenge.
It's probably less important for the Supreme Court, where you can at least be pretty sure they already know what's going on. Otherwise, I don't think people could trust that to be the case.
One fellow told me he knew he was in trouble when he couldn't even get out the customary preface. It went like:
"Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please..."
Chief Justice: "Counsel, I have a question..."
Could mean trouble for the Oyez guy too.
By the way, getting interrupted is good, not bad -- it gives you a chance to address the justices' concerns. Pity the lawyer who gets to read his whole speech without interruptions. The lawyer's prepared speech, moreover, probably just repeats the summary of the argument from the brief, so anything he says that's not directly responsive to a question from the justices is probably a waste of time.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15628904/site/newsweek/
"Things proceeded normally enough for a while. But then, during the time allotted to Smith, the pro-choice lawyer arguing on behalf of Nebraska abortion provider Dr. Leroy Carhart, the man erupted. "ABORTION!" he thundered in a voice that reverberated in the quiet and still courtroom. "REPENT OR YOU WILL PERISH," he went on. He grabbed the arm of Carhart, who happened to be seated next to him and pulled him to the ground. The protester continued yelling as uniformed officers descended on him and dragged him from the room."
I think this s what the drafters had in mind (I hope).
Well, you don't actually know what the Justices were wearing under their robes.
One spoke with an AZ supreme ct. justice who said that Sandra Day had talked about it -- she was on AZ Ct. of Apps before she got the Supremes appointment.
He said he bet she heard some good oral arguments up there, and she responded, no, she heard much better ones in the ct. of appeals. He was surprised.
She replied by the time it gets to the Supremes, the state atty generals figure they have to argue in person. They're politicians who know how to win elections, not cases. "In Division One (of ct. of appeals) we heard under-prepared attorneys. In the Supreme Court, we hear under-prepared politicians. I'll take the under-prepared attorney any day."
From listening to a few arguments, both in the state and in the US Supremes, I've got to say that the quality of argument was VERY low.
I once wrote up a satirical guide to oral argument, with things like:
Remember that an excessive focus on facts and record can detract from much more interesting legal abstractions.
Reading from a typed transcript will avoid slips of the tongue.
Speak in a monotone so as to avoid irritating the court.
If a Justice asks a question that you will address later, simply respond "I'll be getting to that later, Your Honor, and will get there more quickly if you stop interrupting my presentation."
If you briefed the matter being asked, respond that "If you'd bothered to read my brief, you'd know the answer to that, Mr. Chief Justice."
Always be ready with a snappy "Your Honor, I won't even dignify that question with an answer."
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/461/171.html
To allow the observance of authorized ceremonies in the Supreme Court Building and grounds, the Marshal of the Supreme Court may suspend for those occasions any of the prohibitions contained in this subchapter as may be necessary for the occasion if--
(1) responsible officers have been appointed; and
(2) the Marshal determines that adequate arrangements have been made--
(A) to maintain suitable order and decorum in the proceedings; and
(B) to protect the Supreme Court Building and grounds and individuals and property in the Building and grounds.
... incidentally, 40 U.S.C. 6135 makes it illegal to STAND in the SCOTUS or on SCOTUS grounds.
I saw you at the oral arguments, but was too shy to say hi. Nice suit!