Friends of the Supreme Court

In this week's Legal Times, we reported on the unusual coincidence of the Supreme Court having two cases argued on the same day by first-time advocates (and former high court clerks) who were appointed to do so by the Court. The Court appointed them as amicus curiae to defend, on a pro bono basis, lower court decisions that the United States, as respondent, decided it did not want to defend.

Today was the big day for these appointed counsel: Jay Jorgensen of Sidley Austin (who clerked for Samuel Alito Jr.), arguing in Greenlaw v. United States, and Peter Rutledge, a law professor at Catholic University (who clerked for Clarence Thomas), arguing in Izararry v. United States. Both were sentencing disputes, and both Jorgensen and Rutledge acquitted themselves well -- possibly even carrying the day.

Jorgensen was especially sure-footed in arguing that an appeals court can increase a defendant's sentence even when the government did not ask it to do so. He handled questions deftly, faltering only momentarily when he could not remember the name of a decision he wanted to cite. "I wish I could remember the name of the case ... but Justice Scalia was the author," he said. “Me too,” interjected Justice Antonin Scalia lightheartedly.

Rutledge's case asks whether a judge must notify both sides before sentencing a defendant outside the range set by the federal sentencing guidelines. Rutledge said notice was unnecessary in the "new era" when the guidelines are only advisory.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. — who got his first shot at a Supreme Court argument in 1989 with a similar appointment — went out of his way at the end of each argument to thank Jorgensen and Rutledge for "undertaking and discharging" the assignment from the Court.

Comments

[Bryan Riley]

What a fantastic report on Jay - "especially sure-footed" and deftness. I greatly enjoyed reading this report.