Dreams or Delusions? Two Supreme Court Justices Pick Their Side and it May Surprise You

This Monday, I had the opportunity to attend the Shakespeare Theatre Company’s annual Mock Trial event at the Sidney Harman Hall in downtown Washington D.C. The event, a tradition two decades old, deals each year with a legal question regarding a character from a play or musical. This year’s focus was on Don Quixote, or more accurately Alonso Quijana, from “Man of La Mancha.” The legal star-studded event welcomed well-known Washington attorneys and judges to the stage to weigh in on the fictional knight’s fate.

In the scenario presented on Monday night, Don Quixote had already been placed into the guardianship of his niece Antonia. Given his proclivity for attacking windmills among other suspect acts, the Family Court of La Mancha determined that he was unable to take care of himself, putting Antonia in charge of his affairs. However, an advocate speaking on behalf of Don Quixote made a twofold argument that Don Quixote did not need a guardian, and even if the court decided he did, the guardianship should be put in the hands of his faithful squire “Sancho Panza.” Both the judges and the “jury”–the audience–were tasked with considering these questions.

In order to make the arguments feel as realistic as possible, the stage was fastened into a courtroom, complete with five judges and two attorneys. The presiding judge was Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was joined by fellow SCOTUS Justice Stephen Breyer, Chief Judge Merrick Garland, Judge Patricia Millett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson. The attorney arguing on behalf of Don Quixote was Tom Goldstein, of Goldstein & Russell, and a co-founder of SCOTUSBlog. The attorney arguing to uphold the decision of the Family Court of La Mancha was Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin.

Thomas C. Goldstein of Goldstein & Russel, P.C. at the Shakespeare Theatre Company’s 2015 Mock Trial. Image courtesy of [Kevin Allen]

The curtains opened to roughly an hour of rather high-spirited presentation and questioning of the legal arguments. There were some excellent pop culture references–including jokes about the Kardashians, Katy Perry’s left shark, and a wonderfully sharp Deflategate-esque jab about Tom Brady relieving some pressure. My personal favorite moment of the night came when Goldstein made a comment about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinions on procedure being “notorious”–a hilarious reference to the beloved Notorious RBG meme.

There were also jokes clearly tailored to the attorney-heavy Washington D.C. audience. For example during a back-and-forth about the usefulness of windmills, Justice Garland questioned whether we should “appoint a guardian for everyone who opposes renewable energy.” A remark about the 9th Circuit, and it’s “inexplicable” calls garnered a lot of laughs from those in the know–the 9th Circuit is famous for reversing decisions.

After the argument portion came to a close, the judges left to deliberate and the audience was asked whether we, as the “jury,” think that Antonia should remain as Don Quixote’s guardian. We were instructed to place tokens indicating our thoughts into provided baskets–a red token if we thought that Don Quixote should be guardian-less, or a blue token to agree with the Family Court of La Mancha and keep Antonia as the guardian. When the votes were tallied, it was determined that the audience wanted to see Don Quixote continue to live out his dreams without Antonia’s interference, reversing the decision. Happily, the judges agreed. They returned to the stage after their deliberations to inform the crowd that they decided to reverse the Family Court of La Mancha’s decision.

The overwhelming decision to grant Don Quixote his metaphorical freedom wasn’t surprising, given the mood of the night. As the judges consistently noted throughout the evening with their questioning of Goldstein and Phillips, this came down to a question of dreams versus delusions, and it’s a lot happier to put stock in the former rather than the latter.

In the high-stress and hectic environment that is the Washington law and policy field, Monday night’s show stood as a seemingly rare moment of levity and a reminder of the lighter and funnier aspects of life. In true Don Quixote fashion, while it may not always be pragmatic to dream the impossible dream, imagining a world where that’s possible seemed to serve as a welcome respite for many of Washington’s legal elite.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.