A Proposal for Improving Argument Before the United States Supreme Court

41 Pages Posted: 13 Jun 2015

See all articles by Louis J. Sirico

Louis J. Sirico

Villanova University School of Law

Date Written: Spring 2015

Abstract

With rare exceptions, the U.S. Supreme Court allots thirty minutes to each side for oral arguments. A review of transcripts and recordings of oral arguments confirms that the Court poses questions and makes comments with remarkable frequency. When students and lay people listen to the recordings, they may remark on the constant interruptions and view the Justices as rude interrogators.

With the many questions that the Justices have and the limited time available, the advocates have little opportunity to present their arguments fully. The Justices may interrupt counsel with questions concerning the law or the relevant facts of a case. They may wish to pose hypotheticals. They may wish to present direct or indirect arguments in hopes of swaying a fellow member of the bench. With respect to these questions and hypotheticals, the Justices are asking counsel to think on their feet and may catch counsel unprepared to give a full and accurate response.

This Article offers a simple solution for reducing the overload of questions at oral argument. Justices, individually or collectively, could pose written questions on facts and law to the litigants' counsel before oral argument and expect written responses.

The submitted questions might inquire about the facts of the case, about the litigant's interpretation of the relevant law, about the response that the litigant would make to a hypothetical scenario, or about the precise holding that the litigant wishes the Court to propound. The responses should allow for more thought-out answers than oral argument can produce and might both reduce the number of questions that the Justices ask during oral argument and improve the quality of the answers.

The Article places this proposal in historical context by examining how Supreme Court rules on presenting argument have developed - shifting the emphasis from oral argument to written argument. After explaining the value of oral argument and the ways in the which courts have tried to deal with the brevity of oral arguments, the Article illustrates the value of the proposal by closely analyzing the oral argument in Kelo v. City of New London.

Keywords: Supreme Court, oral argument

Suggested Citation

Sirico, Louis J., A Proposal for Improving Argument Before the United States Supreme Court (Spring 2015). Pepperdine Law Review, Vol. 42, 2015, Villanova Law/Public Policy Research Paper No. 2015-1005, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2617323

Louis J. Sirico (Contact Author)

Villanova University School of Law ( email )

299 N. Spring Mill Road
Villanova, PA 19085
United States
610-519 7071 (Phone)
610-519 6282 (Fax)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
49
Abstract Views
502
PlumX Metrics