There was a refreshing change of pace during recent Supreme Court oral arguments, when, instead of the barely concealed hostility and opinion-by-opinion sniping that defined the Court’s sprawling tariffs decision, a few justices decided to take a beat, crack a joke, and acknowledge the absurdity of their own output.
During arguments in Enbridge Energy v. Nessel, the Court briefly stepped away from the now-familiar dynamic of public judicial feuding and leaned into something far rarer — self-deprecating humor about the institution itself. For a Court that recently used some 170 pages to yell at itself in formal legal prose, the levity landed as a small but welcome palate cleanser.
Enter Samuel Alito, who immediately seized the opportunity for some rare bench banter.
“Well, if — well —” Alito began, pausing just long enough for the room to sense where this was going.
(laughter)
“That’s certainly a goal to aim for.”
(more laughter)
And then, because the Court cannot resist a little intra-chambers meta commentary, Alito added:
“I felt very left out in the tariffs case. Justice Sotomayor didn’t write and I didn’t write opinions. But, if…”
At which point Sonia Sotomayor swooped in to land the punchline:
“Maybe we’ll have a chance here.”
This is what passes for Supreme Court comedy. When advocates are openly begging for brevity and the justices are cracking jokes about who didn’t get to write, you know the Court is at least dimly aware that maybe, just maybe, 170 pages is a lot.
To be fair, this is about as close as the Supreme Court ever gets to admitting excess. For a fleeting moment, the justices acknowledged what every clerk, practitioner, and long-suffering reader already knows: judicial maximalism is exhausting (even — or maybe especially — when it’s filled with judicial sniping).
Will Enbridge Energy v. Nessel be a case that produces a tight, elegant opinion that clocks in under triple digits? Who knows! But hope springs eternal. After all, as Justice Alito put it, it’s “certainly a goal to aim for.”
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.
The post After The Tariffs Meltdown, Supreme Court Justices Try Jokes Instead appeared first on Above the Law.
There was a refreshing change of pace during recent Supreme Court oral arguments, when, instead of the barely concealed hostility and opinion-by-opinion sniping that defined the Court’s sprawling tariffs decision, a few justices decided to take a beat, crack a joke, and acknowledge the absurdity of their own output.
During arguments in Enbridge Energy v. Nessel, the Court briefly stepped away from the now-familiar dynamic of public judicial feuding and leaned into something far rarer — self-deprecating humor about the institution itself. For a Court that recently used some 170 pages to yell at itself in formal legal prose, the levity landed as a small but welcome palate cleanser.
Enter Samuel Alito, who immediately seized the opportunity for some rare bench banter.
“Well, if — well —” Alito began, pausing just long enough for the room to sense where this was going.
(laughter)
“That’s certainly a goal to aim for.”
(more laughter)
And then, because the Court cannot resist a little intra-chambers meta commentary, Alito added:
“I felt very left out in the tariffs case. Justice Sotomayor didn’t write and I didn’t write opinions. But, if…”
At which point Sonia Sotomayor swooped in to land the punchline:
“Maybe we’ll have a chance here.”
This is what passes for Supreme Court comedy. When advocates are openly begging for brevity and the justices are cracking jokes about who didn’t get to write, you know the Court is at least dimly aware that maybe, just maybe, 170 pages is a lot.
To be fair, this is about as close as the Supreme Court ever gets to admitting excess. For a fleeting moment, the justices acknowledged what every clerk, practitioner, and long-suffering reader already knows: judicial maximalism is exhausting (even — or maybe especially — when it’s filled with judicial sniping).
Will Enbridge Energy v. Nessel be a case that produces a tight, elegant opinion that clocks in under triple digits? Who knows! But hope springs eternal. After all, as Justice Alito put it, it’s “certainly a goal to aim for.”
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.
The post After The Tariffs Meltdown, Supreme Court Justices Try Jokes Instead appeared first on Above the Law.
