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.

The post Dreams or Delusions? Two Supreme Court Justices Pick Their Side and it May Surprise You appeared first on Law Street.

As more and more young people become interested in what is going on in the Supreme Court, there has been a call for cameras to be allowed inside the deliberations. With an especially important verdict on gay marriage rights for all 50 states coming in April, as well as many other heavy decisions, it seems like there’s no time like the present to install cameras in the hallowed halls’ however, two justices–Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor–recently spoke against the move, making it unclear if the American people will ever have a glimpse into the court’s proceedings.

There is such transparency for some courts and cases–especially those involving celebrities and high-profile individuals. A group of media and legal organizations have joined together to form an organization called the Coalition for Court Transparency, and it petitioned Chief Justice John Roberts to start televising the arguments occurring in the nation’s capital. His response? “There are no plans to change the Court’s current practices.”

Throughout the last two decades or so, the justices have given many different reasons for banning cameras inside of the courtroom, including: cameras will encourage “showy” testimonials, the media will use embarrassing sound bites, or that people will misunderstand and judge without looking into the details; however, there are some who speak of the importance of having some transparency within the Supreme Court because it would encourage Americans to learn more about their judicial system: “There’s a real hunger out there from people to know more about the Supreme Court and the justices,” said Ariane de Vogue, Supreme Court correspondent for ABC News. “I think it would be a marvelous educational opportunity.”

Read on to learn about the considerations that must be taken into account during the debate over whether or not to put cameras in the Supreme Court.

Why should we break tradition?

The Supreme Court stands virtually alone when it comes to cameras inside the courtroom. States make their own rules when it comes to this issue, but many do allow them–as do the highest courts in some nations. Some states even livestream proceedings.

Jerry Goldman, director of the Oyez Project at the Chicago-Kent College of Law at the Illinois Institute of Technology says that the Supreme Court is simply behind the times and always will be unless there is some new blood within its walls: “It’s just uncomfortable with change,” said Goldman, whose website catalogs oral argument audio. “They’re always in the caboose.”

Another professor, Sonja West from the University of Georgia School of Law, sees it a different way: the Supreme Court Justices fear breaking something that already works well, afraid what such a monumental change will bring: “They feel very much like the guardians of a very important institution,” said West, who wrote about the Court’s camera policy in the Brigham Young University Law Review. West also says that the Court is so staunchly traditional because of the respect that shroud of secrecy gives–and respect is a main source of power.

Yet another professor, this one of Constitutional Law at Georgia State, Eric Segall, argues that because the justices are government officials, they should not have the choice of whether or not to be transparent. He suggests that the Court should have the burden of proving why cameras should not be allowed, and not the other way around. “This is a public hearing,” Segall said. “It’s open to the public. It’s material. It’s relevant, and people want to televise it. We should be allowed to see it.”

“We have three branches of government,” Dahlia Lithwick, who covers the Supreme Court for Slate, said about camera access. “Two of them are totally transparent, and one of them is completely secret, and that’s a problem.”

Why might the Supreme Court not want cameras?

There have been a few arguments made repeatedly by the Supreme Court justices and those who support them in their calls for privacy. Each one has reasons why it’s a good idea to retain some mystery, but there are also reasons why the need for transparency may overcome the possible adverse effects.

The Public Will Misunderstand What is Going On

Justices have traditionally opposed cameras because people will not understand the role of oral arguments and will jump to conclusions and “root” for an outcome of the case. Justice Scalia has even gone on record to say that the complexity and interworking of the law “is why the University of Chicago Law Review is not sold at a 7-Eleven.”

Sotomayor told a reporter that arguments should not be televised in part because most viewers “don’t take the time to appreciate what the Court is doing.”

However, to some, this view has it backward. Broadcasts of arguments would help the public learn about the Court’s operations, according to Segall. “The more we see Justice [Antonin] Scalia being obnoxious, the more we see Justice [Anthony] Kennedy acting like a law professor, the more we see Justice [Clarence] Thomas sitting there and doing nothing, the more we have insight into the people who work for us.”

Still, there is a chance that people will misunderstand what is happening with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has always had problems when it comes to public opinion with consistent periods of low approval ratings, it is easy to see why that could be a fear. A simple misunderstanding could create mistrust between the public and the Court, undermining their effectiveness.

Even for those who are college educated, law isn’t typically a mandatory course like math or even political science. It will be difficult for the general public to grasp some of what is happening within the Supreme Court.

Picking and Choosing

Justices have also feared that putting video cameras into the proceedings will allows journalists to take quotes from the hearing and use them as sound bites for laughs and shock.

Kennedy once said he does not want the Court to become part of “the national entertainment network.”

And Scalia told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “[F]or every ten people who sat through our proceedings gavel to gavel, there would be 10,000 who would see nothing but a thirty-second takeout from one of the proceedings, which I guarantee you would not be representative of what we do.”

Pretty much every news network uses videos of politicians in order to prove points–and taking things out of context seems to be the norm. So, is there something to be said about fearing the editing process? Of course–as with anything. However, it will be up to the journalist to uphold ethics when reporting the news. What comes out of the mouths of the Justices isn’t always how they truly feel or how they want the case to go. Any footage that is taken from the proceedings will have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Cameras and Audio

In addition to video imaging from within the Supreme Court, there has also been a ban on audio recording from within the chambers. In the past, audio recordings have been doctored and then misreported by news outlets, leading to headaches. That has slackened some, and audio recordings are now available after the verdict has been announced. Sometimes they will release same-day audio for high-profile cases, but this is extremely rare.

Notably, one can still get same-day written transcripts of the oral arguments and opinion announcements; however, these do not take things like tone and delivery into consideration. The Justices have learned to choose their words wisely so that they do not come across wrong on paper.

Sotomayor discussed the problems with all reporting to The New York Times, saying:

I don’t think most viewers take the time to actually delve into either the briefs or the legal arguments to appreciate what the court is doing,” she said. “They speculate about, oh, the judge favors this point rather than that point. Very few of them understand what the process is, which is to play devil’s advocate.

It obviously took a while to get to the point where audio recordings are allowed as well, and it might seem like they’re pretty much the same thing as video recordings; however, they’re probably less likely to be mass-distributed on platforms such as news shows, and therefore, less likely to be misconstrued.

Performance Issues

There are also concerns that if cameras are brought into the Supreme Court, the advocates will pander to them. Instead of focusing on the merit of their arguments, they will try to be more convincing and flashy. That being said, that worry gives very little credit to the attorneys arguing the cases–their arguments would still be what the Supreme Court decided on, so there would be little value in creating a performance for outside audiences.

Conclusion

Putting cameras in the Supreme Court is going to take some work from everyone involved. It isn’t going to be something that can have a seamless transition and just happen overnight. Instead, it is something that journalists, viewers, lawyers, and justices will have to come to terms with, and change their behaviors accordingly.

Whatever the change is, there needs to be more transparency in a system that is broken. The Coalition for Court Transparency claims:

Currently, to attend Supreme Court hearings, individuals must stand in line outside the building and wait to be ushered in. There are roughly 400 seats in the courtroom, only a fraction of which are available to the public. That means countless Americans hoping to view the arguments are unable to, especially in cases that have broad public interest, such as the marriage equality, Obamacare, voting rights, and affirmative action cases in recent terms. For these types of cases, interested citizens must often line up hours, if not days, in advance of the arguments. In some instances they have to compete with “line-standers” whose employers have been paid thousands of dollars to hold a powerful or wealthy person’s place in line.

Stay tuned for the next few months as the changes are sure to come quickly.

Resources

Primary

Oyez Project: Latest 

Supreme Court: Transcripts and Recordings of Oral Arguments

Additional 

BYU Law Review: The Monster in the Courtroom

Slate: Amicus: Cameras in the Courtroom

Open SCOTUS: Coalition Letter

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: Holding Out Against Cameras at the Supreme Court

National Constitution Center: Justices’ Comments Cast More Doubts on Supreme Court Cameras 

USA Today: Justices Rock it on the Road, If You Can Find Them

Blaze: New Push to Get Video Cameras in Supreme Court

NPR: Once Under Wraps, Supreme Court Audio Trove Now Online

Slate: Punch and Judge Judy

Tampa Bay Times: Sotomayor No Longer Favors Video Cameras at Supreme Court

CNN: Supreme Court Agrees to Take on Same-Sex Marriage Issue

Slate: Supreme Court Justices Are Not Really Judges

Daily Signal: Public Opinion and the Supreme Court

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Televised Trials: Should Cameras Be Allowed in the Supreme Court? appeared first on Law Street.

Introducing first, in one corner, weighing the equivalent of nine justices, hailing from Washington D.C., backed by broadcasters, the well educated, ever respected SUPREEEEME COURT!

In the other corner, less than one pound and the size of a dime, young and feisty, hailing from New York, the crowd favorite, the underdog, the AEREO ANTENNAAAA!

Well, folks… we all know how this fight ended. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, beat Aereo’s butt on the grounds of copyright infringement.

Nobody thought that Aereo, bruised and beaten from being on the ropes, would ever return to the ring. But have we found our comeback kid? It seems Aereo wants to brawl after broadcasters requested that a New York court order Aereo to cease business across the country. In new court papers, Aereo demands another chance. The Internet television provider insists it be given the necessary cable license for operation, legally allowing it to transmit broadcast TV shows.

“It would be illogical and fundamentally unfair to find that Aereo’s ‘Watch Now’ functionality is a ‘cable system’ …for the public performance analysis, but is not entitled to a compulsory license under the same,” Aereo asserts.

Odds are up in the air for this aggressive little company. A competitor of similar build, ivi TV was recently shot down after also requesting the same compulsory license in New York. So, why is the crowd still cheering for Aereo? Its individual attention to its fans! ivi TV’s transmissions were nationwide while Aereo only offered shows to those who subscribed to its service. This slight difference in technique can be just enough to bring victory to Aereo in this rematch with the judicial system.

Aereo enters this match insisting it’s a clean fighter, reminding the courts that it has “failed to show any imminent irreparable harm.” The company asks, “What better proof could there be that claimed harms are not imminent…than what actually happened when the complained-of actions went on for years?” Hope for this underdog comes from statements like that of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer who has said that there are no “behind the scenes technological differences” that discern Aereo from actual cable companies.

Meanwhile, more fighters are gearing up to enter the competition. In an attempt to fill the Aereo void, TiVo has come forward with its new ‘OTA’ device, and Roku has plans for smart televisions with Aereo-like technology already integrated into the devices.

Let’s not forget about the common theme in all of this, however: that damn cloud. Problems surrounding Cloud service have not specifically been addressed, even in the Supreme Court opinion of Aereo’s ruling. Not wanting to overreach, the Justices cited that they could not “answer more precisely how the Transmit Clause or other provisions of the Copyright Act will apply to technologies not before us… Questions involving cloud computing (remote storage) DVRs and other novel issues not before the Court… should await a case in which they are squarely presented.”

So, much like a cloud, the fate of this new technology is still up in the air. For now, all we can do is follow the IP scuffles that occur on the ground and in the courtroom.

—

Alexandra Badalamenti (@AlexBadalamenti) is a Jersey girl and soon-to-be graduate of Fordham University in Lincoln Center. She plans to enroll in law school next year to study Entertainment Law. On any given day, you’ll find her with big blonde hair, high heels, tall Nashville dreams, and holding a newspaper or venti latte.

Featured image courtesy of [Kristin Wall via Flickr]

The post Aereo: The Comeback Kid? appeared first on Law Street.

If you like to collect Supreme Court memorabilia (I mean, who doesn’t?) one of the greatest things you can have is a Supreme Court bobblehead doll.

Law professor Ross Davies from George Mason University came up with the idea about ten years ago. He claims it just came to him while he was in the shower. Since then, he has designed 16 miniature bobblehead versions of Supreme Court justices. Created in Bellvue, Wash. by Alexander Global Productions, four sitting justices are featured: Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy.

Every single detail of the justices’ likenesses has some sort of hidden meaning. For example, mini bobblehead Sandra Day O’Connor wears the same shoes real O’Connor wore when she made history as the first female Supreme Court justice. Little David Souter plays a Modest Mouse song that he referenced in a copyright case when he sat on the court. Tiny Ginsburg stands on the parade grounds of Virginia Military University, a reference to the opinion she wrote striking down their all-male admissions policy. Collectors get together to decode all the details of their favorite bobbleheads. According to one of Davies’ co-creators, Gregory Jacob, “It’s like proof of their legal geekdom.”

Now before you rush out to the store to try to get one, it’s important to point out that these delightful little items are not available for sale — they’re given out for free. The easiest way to get your hands on one is to subscribe to The Green Bag, a legal journal co-edited by Davies. Whenever a bobblehead is finished, one is sent to the justice, and others are given out for free to people with vouchers who claim their prizes at a Washington DC law office. If you aren’t one of those lucky, voucher-winning fans, you might still get one through the occasional law school fundraiser auction, or perhaps for hundreds of dollares on Ebay.

The Justices themselves are great fans of their ceramic likenesses. Davies still has a thank you letter from former Chief Justice Rehnquist, who was the subject of the first bobblehead. Stephen Breyer collects his coworkers. They’re popular among other legal scholars as well. Charmiane Claxton is a federal judge in Tenn. who collects them, even getting her Scalia and O’Connor dolls signed by the justices themselves.

Because of the format in which they are released, some experts have called them  “some of rarest bobbleheads ever produced.” Certificates were recently released for the newest justice to be immortalized in bobble form: John Blair. According to Davies, he’s working on Stephen Breyer’s bobblehead now.

So on that note, Happy New Year everyone! One of my new New Year’s resolutions is to get one of these bobbleheads in 2014 — who’s with me?

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Jeff Kubina via Flickr]

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.

The post Greatest Legal Souvenir Ever? appeared first on Law Street.