CourtArtist.com

Anchors Aweigh

A group of Navy lawyers picked the right day, yesterday, to be sworn in to the Supreme Court bar.  The first case argued, Levi v. United States, involved a malpractice and medical battery suit against a Navy surgeon. But first, the Court had an opinion to announce that might have touched on Admiralty law, but didn't.

In Lozman v. Riviera Beach the Supreme Court ruled that a houseboat is not a vessel subject to maritime law. In his opinion Justice Stephen Breyer noted that not every floating structure is a vessel. "To state the obvious, a wooden washtub, a plastic dishpan, a swimming platform on pontoons ... or Pinocchio (when inside the whale) are not 'vessels'", Breyer said, "even if they are 'artificial contrivances' capable of floating, moving under tow, and incidentally carrying even a fair-sized item or two when they do so."

The Court also heard arguments in a "takings" case, Koontz v. St. Johns River, of which I've posted a sketch below.

Not sure why the lawyer for the petitioner looks so happy. According to Lyle the argument did not seem to go his way.

Lyle Denniston's take on the "takings" case here.

Justice Thomas Breaks His Silence ...sort of

The first argument at the Supreme Court this morning, and what I expected would be the subject of this post, was a potentially historic case, Alleyne v. United States. But near the end of the second argument, as I was finishing my sketches of the first, an unfamiliar voice was heard from the bench. After nearly seven years of remaining silent during arguments Justice Thomas was speaking!

It wasn't a question for the lawyer at the lectern, more of an aside. And what Thomas actually said is in dispute. Something about the competence of Yale or Harvard Law graduates?

WSJ's Jess Bravin has the historic story here.

DUI Blood Test Argument

Can police order someone pulled over for drunk driving to take a blood test, or must they first get a warrant? During yesterday's Supreme Court arguments in Missouri v. McNeely most of the Justices seemed to think that usually a warrant should be required.

In the sketch above the ACLU's Steven Shapiro argues for the repondent, Tyler McNeely. Below are more sketches from the arguments and a link to Lyle Denniston's SCOTUSblog story.

My apologies to Mr. Shapiro; I just couldn't get a good likeness. Sometimes it's like that.

Lyle Denniston's analysis here.

 

Welcome Back, Aggie

One of the sketch artists I most admire, Aggie Whalen Kenny, was visiting the Supreme Court this week. Aggie used to sketch the Court regularly for ABC and CBS back when I was still wet behind the ears. Now if only Don Juhlin would show up!

Oh, in case you were wondering, she's sketching the riveting arguments in Gabelli v. SEC.

First Argument of the New Year

A small, 9" x 12", sketch of yesterday's arguments in Descamps v. U.S.

Justice Ginsburg Forgoes the Jabot

One thing a sketch artist at the Supreme Court needs to look for is whether Justice Ginsburg is wearing a jabot or one of her increasingly large doilies around her neck. Today, for the first time I can recall, she wore neither. She appeared to be wearing a sparkly necklace of dark crystals. I couldn't quite make it out.

The above sketch is from the Title VII case argued today, Vance v. Ball State University.

Below are a couple of sketches from the other case argued dealing with federal antitrust law and Georgia's state health care system, FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System. Note again, Ginsburg sans jabot.

 

 

Is She Looking At Me ?

Justice Sotomayor often glances over at the press section during oral arguments. Is she just pondering a legal question, or checking that the sketch artist is getting this?

The Morning After . . .

. . . election day. Best not to read anything into it; Scalia often looks down while the Marshal calls the Court to order.

Kramer Takes the Tough Cases

I've sketched Chief Federal Public Defender A.J. Kramer many times over the years, but always in U.S. District Court where he defended those accused of highly publicized crimes in DC. Today was the first time I've seen him argue a case before the Supreme Court. He did a good job, but the cards are stacked against his client.

BTW, the case concerned the statute of limitations on a conspiracy charge and I just have to insert this bit of dialogue from Seinfeld episode #307, The Cafe. 

Kramer: Anyway, it's been two years. I mean isn't there like statue of limitations on that?

Jerry: Statute.

Kramer: What?

Jerry: Statute of limitations. It's not a statue.

Kramer: No, statue.

Jerry: Fine, it's a sculpture of limitations.

Kramer: Just wait a minute...Elaine, Elaine! Now you're smart, is it statue or statute of limitations?

Elaine: Statute.

Kramer: Oh, I really think you're wrong.

The case is Smith v. United States

Above the Law's Matt Kaiser has the story here.

Politics Aside

Conservative lawyer Miguel Estrada, whose nomination to the DC Circuit by President George W. Bush was succesfully fillibustered by Senate Democrats, went out of his way to support liberal Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan during her Senate confirmation. He called her  "an impeccably qualified nominee", and wrote, "one of the prerogatives of the President under our Constitution is to nominate high federal officers, including judges, who share his (or her) governing philosophies". Later, in a letter to Senator Lindsay Graham, Kagan said of Estrada, "no one I know is a more faithful friend or a more fundamentally decent person".

The above sketch shows Estrada during today's arguments in a class action case, Comcast v. Behrend.