COMM 317: oral arguments -- U.S. Supreme Court

Anthony Lewis in "Make No Law" says oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court is

... the one chance the justices have to emerge from their cloister, the secluded chambers in that marbale palace on Capitol Hill, and grapple directly with the lawyers who represent the clashing interests before them. It is also a rare opportunity for the public to gain insights into the minds of those who actually make the decisions. (128)

For reporters covering the high court, it's kind of like reading tea leaves. The justices very rarely talk with the press, and they never talk about upcoming judicial decisions. So oral argument gives the reporters a chance to guess what's on their minds by the tone of their questions.

How much did the argument in Time v. Sullivan tip the court's hand? What would you guess the justices were thinking?

Here's another exercise. Let's read some stories about the oral argument last year in Morse v. Frederick, a free speech case involving a high school student in Juneau, Alaska, who displayed a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" outside his school in 2002. He was punished for it and literally made a Supreme Court case out of it.

What are the issues in the case? What are the facts? What is the law? What are the questions that have to be decided (i.e. the issues)? Which ones seem to matter most to the justices? Can you guess how they were going to decide?

Here's a story by the Student Press Law Center, with links at the bottom of the page to the oral argument transcript and earlier stories on the case. Let's also read a snarky little writeup in Slate.com, by legal correspondent Dahlia Lithwick who puts a civil libertarian spin on it and also can't resist riffing on the justices' demeanor in court.

What similarities do you see between Times v. Sullivan on the one hand and Morse v. Frederick on the other? What differences? What implications might all of this stuff have for you as you begin writing and editing careers?