Amy Howe

Sep 21 2021

Justices tweak format of in-person oral arguments to allow time for taking turns

The Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that oral arguments will follow a slightly different plan when the justices return to the courtroom for in-person arguments next month. Instead of reverting entirely to the traditional “free for all” format for asking questions, the justices will adopt a hybrid approach that sets aside time for the justices to take turns asking questions, just as they did when hearing oral arguments by telephone during the pandemic. The change appears to increase the chances that Justice Clarence Thomas, who was rarely heard in the courtroom but was an active participant in remote arguments, will continue to participate when in-person arguments resume.

Notification of the change came in the new version of the court’s guide for arguing lawyers, which was released on Tuesday. Under the procedure outlined in the guide, the first part of each argument will follow the format used before the pandemic, in which the justices – after giving the advocates a brief interval at the beginning to make their opening statements – freely ask questions. During this time, the justices can presumably interrupt both the arguing lawyer and each other at will.

But after each lawyer’s time has ended, the guide explains, “each Justice will have the opportunity to question that attorney individually,” beginning with Chief Justice John Roberts and continuing in order of seniority, just as the court did when hearing arguments by telephone during the pandemic. The guide does not indicate how much time each justice will have for his or her questions, although it does direct the arguing lawyers to “respond directly to the questions posed” and avoid making “any additional arguments not responsive to the question.”

The designation of specific opportunities for each justice to ask questions appears to increase the likelihood that Thomas will continue to be an active participant, as he was during remote arguments over the past year. Thomas, who is known for being chatty and gregarious off the bench, has expressed misgivings about the court’s traditional free-for-all argument format, saying that advocates should be able to make their points without being interrupted. He has gone as long as 10 years without asking any questions at oral argument. But when the court adopted the more structured format for remote arguments, Thomas emerged as an active participant whose questions often prompted follow-ups from the more junior justices who spoke after him.

This post is also published on SCOTUSblog.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies