U.S. Presidents Arguing Before the Supreme Court:
Which U.S. Presidents have -- at some point in their careers -- argued before the Supreme Court? I know of only one (thanks to Ira Matetsky), but there might have been others. Note that I'm not looking for cases in which Presidents sued or were sued, but ones that they personally argued as lawyers.
I saw something recently that lead me to believe it was argued while he was President, which would mean that he probably didn't argue it to the SC, being busy with other things. I've not followed up so I'm not too sure.
He was SG from February 1890 - March 1892 (he was 32 years old when he started that job).
Rosemary Woods strikes again!
According to Wikipedia's list of Presidents by occupation, 24 of Presidents have been lawyers. 25% of those arguing before the high court is a pretty good percentage!
Wikipedia's list of lawyer-Presidents:
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
John Tyler
James Polk
Millard Fillmore
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Abraham Lincoln
Rutherford Hayes
Chester Arthur
Benjamin Harrison
William Taft
Woodrow Wilson
Calvin Coolidge
Franklin Roosevelt
Richard Nixon
Gerald Ford
Bill Clinton
Barak Obama
Taft served on the Court from 1921 until a month before his death in 1930.
John Quincy Adams
James Polk
Abraham Lincoln
James Garfield
Grover Cleveland
Benjamin Harrison
William Howard Taft
Richard Nixon
While the Republicans were more than happy to describe him to the voters as the rail splitter who grew up in a log cabin, the reality is that he was one of the top attorneys in Illinois, arguing more than 150 cases before the Illinois Supreme Court.
Off-topic, but close: Did Clinton ever get his bar ticket back, so that he could still hope to get to Court?
He was probably the first with the now common title - "Attorney General".
:-)
Off-topic, but close: Did Clinton ever get his bar ticket back, so that he could still hope to get to Court?
</blockquote>
You have to be admitted to practice before the US Supreme Court separately by showing at least 3 years of membership in a state bar with a clean record and obtaining the sponsorship of 2 current members of the Supreme Court bar. Even if Clinton was restored to good standing with the Arkansas bar, no attorney with averse disciplinary actions on his record would be admitted to the SCOTUS bar.
You mean he could actually have a chance even after being forced to give up his license for five years for a breach of professional conduct while in charge of enforcing the laws of this country? Prior bad acts must not be admissable in a confirmation hearing either.
More recently, Arlen Specter argued Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994), while serving in the Senate.
Not to be pedantic about it -- OK, who am I fooling, but that's what the interwebs are for, right? -- but Lincoln's oral argument in Lewis v Lewis took place on March 7 & 8, 1849, only days after his term as a Representative came to an end on March 4. The dates of his argument come from McGinty's book referenced in my earlier post; the end of his tenure in the House from
Lincoln's political career
We know that Garfield argued for the defense and won: Milligan was set free.
After that, though, Milligan sued for damages. He sought $5000, but was awarded only a symbolic $5 plus costs. The government's advocate was Benjamin Harrison.
(Note: The civil trial wasn't a Supreme Court case.)
I've heard about Clinton that he deeply wanted to follow Taft and be a Justice after his presidency was over. I don't remember where or when, but I remember hearing it somewhere (maybe just the voices in my head). Of course, that just begs the question, do you need a license to be a Justice (or even a judge)? I'd imagine the answer is yes (if only because our profession likes to protect its own), but I can see arguments for why it wouldn't be required (after all, you're not representing clients, so the consumer protection rationale for licensing attorneys doesn't hold).
As an aside, I have to say this is one of the most interesting threads I've read in a long time.
All that is needed is a nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. No stated requirement to be an attorney.
Huey Long also argued a case before the Court - Justice Taft called him the finest advocate he'd ever heard - though I suppose he never made the final step necessary to make it into the present discussion.
Indeed, the Solicitor General is the only federal official required by statute to be "learned in the law."
I know there are USSC justices who never went to college (Justice Jackson comes to mind immediately)...are there states where you could be admitted to the bar without attending law school on the strength of a "self-study" program?
Brevet Major General Rutherford Hayes, Brigadier General Chester Arthur, and Brigadier General Benjamin Harrison were all generals as well as lawyers.
Why is Garfield not on the list of lawyers who were president? (Oh, and before you ask, he was a Major General).
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.