Oral argument at the Supreme Court before, during, and after the pandemic

ABSTRACT

[...]beginning this past fall, the justices returned to the courtroom, assuming a "hybrid" model that retains both pre-pandemic and telephonic elements [...]in what proved to be one of his last exchanges with some of his colleagues, the late WALTER DELLINGER, a former acting solicitor general of the United States and a much beloved Duke Law professor who had himself argued 24 cases before the Supreme Court, moderated. [...]the Court builds in quite a bit of time to read and distill those documents - along, of course, with the amicus briefs - before oral argument. [...]I think there are the difficult cases where the Court actually may come out one way or the other based on how oral argument goes, either because the question is just exceptionally close and vexing, or because it's an area of law where the justices may not have as much familiarity - for example, when they deal with a new statute or an arcane area of law. In those cases, the justices are learning more at argument about either the law or the real world as it applies to that legal issue. When representing institutional clients like the federal government, it often matters a lot more what the Court says by way of reasoning than whether a particular conviction is upheld, a particular individual recovers damages, or even whether or not a particular law is upheld.