Courtesy of Ch’nel Duke
WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Monday, Dec. 9, University students affiliated with the James Madison Program (JMP) traveled to the capitol to listen to the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr and Thryv, Inc v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP. The students attended as guests of Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.
“The James Madison Program has sponsored undergraduate trips to the Supreme Court for over ten years,” explained Ch’nel Duke, who serves as the program’s communications and undergraduate programs advisor. Duke added that each year, the seats are arranged through the chambers of one of the justices.
Founded in the summer of 2000 as part of the University’s Department of Politics, the James Madison Program “is dedicated to exploring enduring questions of American constitutional law and Western political thought.” For undergraduate fellows, the Supreme Court trip has become an opportunity like no other to see this mission in action, allowing them to explore one of the nation’s most enduring institutions.
The students left early Monday morning, arriving in time for the 10:00 session. While half of the students attended the first oral argument, the other half explored the Court’s other offerings, which include a museum, a movie theatre, and a gift shop. They then exchanged places for the second oral argument.
The exterior and interior architecture of the Court was the first thing to elicit reactions of astonishment from students.
“When I first walked in the room, I was surprised by the size and grandeur and adornment of the courtroom,” Joshua Latham ’20 explained.
“The gigantic pillars behind the justices are quite imposing, and I wasn’t expecting such a powerful statement in the layout and setup of the room,” Latham added.
Nothing could top the oral arguments however. After all, the trip’s purpose, according to Duke, was “to enable students to experience the drama of a Supreme Court argument where lawyers on opposing sides face the daunting challenge of being closely questioned by the justices in the highest court of the land.”’
“It’s one thing to read opinions and transcripts of oral arguments, but another thing to witness the give and take between advocates and justices, which helps to demystify the idealized image of the Supreme Court,” Duke continued.
Both cases were concerned with the scope of judicial review of agency decisions. In the first case, Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, the justices considered statutory limits on the authority of federal appellate courts to review decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals. The second case, Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, concerned the extent to which the Patent and Trademark Office has unreviewable discretion in granting administrative reviews of previously issued patents.
“What could have been a simple discussion quickly turned into a lively debate about the essence of judicial review and even separation of powers concerns,” explained Daniel Schwarzhoff ’20, who listened to the first oral argument. “It was terrific seeing Justices Breyer, Gorsuch, and the others grilling the lawyers.”
Schwarzhoff is an opinion writer for the Tory.
Despite the intense questioning, there were lighter moments throughout. According to Liam O’Connor ’20, “Justice Breyer used a healthy dosage of sarcasm in his questions.”
“It’s great to see that our highest judges can go about their solemn daily work yet still inject some humor into it,” O’Connor, who is a news writer for the Tory, added.
When one lawyer, arguing on behalf of Click-To-Call Technologies, stressed the importance of protecting patent owners, Chief Justice Roberts replied: “Well, but, I mean, I don’t think it’s what we were fighting over at Yorktown.” The quip was met with raucous laughter.
The trip also encouraged some to rethink their career plans.
“I came in feeling solid in my career path, but attending the session made me think that being a lawyer would be a really cool job, so I might just be looking into that as a possible career,” Mujtuba Yousufi ’23 explained.
Duke also pointed to the utility of the trip for students in the process of career discernment.
“Some of the undergraduate fellows may be considering following in the footsteps of former students who have gone on to law school and lower court clerkships and have even made it all the way to the Supreme Court,” Duke explained. Three alumni of the University currently sit on the Court: Samuel Alito ’72, Sonia Sotomayor ’76, and Elena Kagan ’81.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.