A Visit to the Supreme Court

Yesterday I had the great privilege of hearing oral arguments before the Supreme Court. The case was a boring one to most people, but it is actually a landmark case in an area in which I currently work. The Supreme Court heard two separate cases together to decide the legality of the federal sentencing guidelines. Sounds kinda boring, right? Well, it’s actually important. If you want to hear some basic details on the case, read the next paragraph. If not, just skip past it and continue reading.

Before the creation of the Federal Sentencing Commission and the federal sentencing guidelines in 1987, two people with exactly the same criminal history that committed the exact same crime could receive drastically different sentences, depending on the personal style or opinion of the federal judge. So the Federal Sentencing Commission was created as a quasi-legal body to help create guidelines to try to make the system uniform, fair, and consistent. And while almost all people consider this goal to be worthy, many people (most notably Justice Antonin Scalia) believe this commission to be unconstitutional. So last June, out of the blue comes a case called Blakely v. Washington that challenged the Washington state sentencing guidelines. The court ruled them unconstitutional because under Washington state guidelines (which are suspiciously similar to the federal ones) a convicted defendant could receive more than the maximum jury-recommended sentence, depending on other elements present such as the presence of drugs, use of firearms, etc. So suddenly the whole federal sentencing guideline system is called into question, so two cases were fast tracked up to the Supreme Court out of Maine and Illinois to determine the constitutionality of said guidelines. Boring or not, the case will affect thousands of people each year.

The experience was amazing. My coworker and I waited outside for two hours to get into the courtroom because we were afraid that it would fill up fast. But despite the fact that it was the first day of the session and the cases of Fanfan and Booker were pretty high profile, everyone got in easily. We didn’t mind the wait; it was a nice day and we ate lunch in the plaza in front of the Supreme Court Building. That beats sitting in my cubicle any day. After going through several metal detectors and checking all items except a pad of paper and a pen, we were seated in the rear of the courtroom just in front of the huge marble columns. We got in just in time: just as I sat down I had to rise again as the Marshall of the Supreme Court banged her gavel and announced the Justices. So in walked Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the other Justices and they got down to business. It was impressive enough to be in the Supreme Court—marble columns, maroon velvet curtains, pacing security guards, etc.—but to be across the room from the Justices was the coolest part. It’s weird seeing people in person at such a short distance that you usually see in textbooks or newspapers.

Because there were two cases combined, the Acting Solicitor General Paul Clement had a full hour to argue his case. Because he is essentially the government’s lawyer before the Supreme Court, the Justices paid him a certain amount of deference. But they still shot a rapid-fire series of questions at him most of the hour. To his credit, Clement was amazing, snapping out code and going head to head with Justice Scalia on several occasions. (They do not see eye to eye on several topics, but Clement was not cowed.) The current Acting Solicitor General was surprisingly young, almost certainly in his thirties, and he argued eloquently with Supreme Court Justices without any notes in front of him.

The attorneys representing Mr. Booker and Mr. Fanfan (J. Christopher Kelly and Rosemary Scapicchio, respectively) were not quite at ease in the courtroom, although Ms. Scapicchio certainly did not lack in attitude. In her thick Chicago accent she basically accused the Solicitor General of changing his story. Both Mr. Kelly and Ms Scapicchio underwent aggressive questioning by the Justices, especially from Justices Scalia, Ginsberg, and Breyer. Every Justice had a comment or question except for Justice Clarence Thomas, who maintained his customary silence. I was glad I was seated in the back of the courtroom and not subject to the 9-way crossfire up front.

It was a cool experience, I got several hours of work off, and I got to see a landmark Supreme Court case argued by the best. I doubt this will be a case schoolchildren will have to memorize. It wasn’t a Marbury v. Madison or Brown v. Board of Education, but it will matter to a lot of people and I was glad I got to see it.