Interruptions on the Supreme Court

A new study that's making waves in the legal community has found that female US Supreme Court justices are three times more likely to be interrupted than their male counterparts. Who's doing the interrupting? Yep, usually their male counterparts. But sometimes attorneys arguing before the Court are interrupting them.

Both of these facts are remarkable. The first is remarkable because it indicates that even at the highest levels of power, women aren't treated with the respect accorded men.

The second is remarkable because a guide for attorneys arguing before the Court advises them not to interrupt a justice. It's not a hard and fast rule per se, but it is a rule of decorum. And decorum is pretty important to the Supremes. So who's in charge of enforcing the rules--of decorum and otherwise--at the Supreme Court?

Chief Justice Roberts. Mister Chief Justice Roberts.

Notably, Mister Chief Justice Roberts is also the second most likely of the currently sitting justices to interrupt his female colleagues. (No stats on J. Gorsuch yet.)

Well, if that don't get your panties in a bunch, your panties don't bunch as easily as mine do.

You can read a more detailed analysis of the study--with a link to the 73-page law review article that started it all--here.

Ken Weller

Ken Weller was the head of Legal Aid in Lafayette for many years, and represented thousands of parents in CHINS (child abuse and neglect cases). We worked together frequently when I was working for DCS, and he was one of the most dogged attorneys I've known. He told me once, "No one wakes up in the morning and says, 'I'm going to abuse my kid today.' These are people who want to be good parents, but have something getting in the way. My job is to help them get whatever it is out of the way, by getting them the time and the resources to do that."

Ken passed away recently. The Lafayette Journal and Courier has a wonderful article about him today. You can access it here.

Hively v. Ivy Tech

Ivy Tech made legal history yesterday, largely by losing a court case in the Federal Circuit Court for the 7th Circuit. In Hively v. Ivy Tech, Ms. Hively, an adjunct (at another campus, as far as I know) claimed that Ivy Tech failed to give her a full-time position because she is a lesbian.

I have not read the briefs in the case. I have worked at Ivy Tech for a few years now, full-time, and I can state that full-time positions are few and far between. It is a common complaint of the faculty that this college relies too much on adjuncts. Even the state agency tasked with overseeing the college has started mumbling something similar.

In any event, Ivy Tech's first line of defense--and correctly, from a legal standpoint--was to deny that there is any right to be free of employment discrimination on the basis of one's sexual orientation.

I say correctly not because I agree, or think that's how it should be, but because if Ivy Tech could prove this, it would be the quickest and most economical way to end the lawsuit. So that's what it did.

And in fact, the district court ruled in Ivy Tech's favor. But on appeal, the 7th Circuit reversed, and said that there is a federal right to be free of employment discrimination on the basis of one's sexual orientation--the first time a federal circuit court has done so.

Ivy Tech announced yesterday that it would not be appealing that order. The case will be remanded for a trial on the merits. As I hinted above, given how rarely anyone gets a full-time position here, I believe Ms. Hively has her work cut out for her. With full-time positions coming up only once in a blue moon, they tend to be very competitive when they arise.

So there's the law part of this entry. Now for the fun part. Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit has a national reputation as an independent thinker, shall we say. He was appointed by Pres. Reagan (a republican, for those of you too young to be sure), but has gradually skewed left of center over time--although there's no telling which way he'll rule on anything. (Interestingly, federal judges, who have lifetime tenures, do have a documented tendency to skew left to some degree after their appointments. Some of our most liberal federal judges were appointed by republican presidents, much to their chagrin. I do not know if anyone has figured out why this is.)

Anyway, Judge Posner wrote a concurring opinion, which was covered by Above the Law, one of the legal blogs I follow. The blog's coverage--and Posner's late-night responses, follow:

Competing with these lines for the most fun part of Judge Posner’s opinion is what I’d describe as a list of his Favorite Gays of All Time (p. 31):

We now understand that homosexual men and women (and also bisexuals, defined as having both homosexual and heterosexual orientations) are normal in the ways that count, and beyond that have made many outstanding intellectual and cultural contributions to society (think for example of Tchaikovsky, Oscar Wilde, Jane Addams, André Gide, Thomas Mann, Marlene Dietrich, Bayard Rustin, Alan Turing, Alec Guinness, Leonard Bernstein, Van Cliburn, and James Baldwin—a very partial list).

A very partial list indeed! Where’s Leonardo da Vinci? Alexander the Great? Elton John? It’s an idiosyncratic collection, to say the least.

UPDATE (11:32 p.m.): Judge Posner’s response: “I think Alexander was bisexual. But yes, Leonardo could have been included. I just reeled off the names that came first to mind.”

UPDATE (11:49 p.m.): Additional comment from Judge Posner: “I’m very embarrassed to have omitted Elton John! I love his music. He’s my favorite popular musician. I can do without Alexander but not without Elton John.”

Now you know what keeps Judge Posner up at night.

Sundquist v. Bank of America

Yesterday in Property, we discussed the rather stunning case of Sundquist v. Bank of America. This federal bankruptcy court decision from California has all the hallmarks of a blockbuster movie, although I remain unconvinced that Denzel Washington will play the part of lead attorney.

By request, here is a link to the case:

Sometimes the little guy wins. (And wins big.)

Commas: Who Needs 'em? We All Do!

Several of you have brought this case to my attention, and I absolutely love it. The case is a wonderful illustration of why I, like most legal professionals (and ALL the good ones) obsess about things like punctuation. It matters!

Comma Case

The more astute among you will note that there is also a parallelism issue which reinforced the court's ruling. I noticed that none of the major news outlets picked up on that, probably because parallelism is to erudite for the hoi polloi. (Oh, look! Words to google!) But we see it, right?

ABA Legal Tech Show

I have always ignored the Legal Tech show on the theory that I don't really "get" technology anyway, and I can do what I need to do. But the ABA actually sent a flyer directly to my attention, and upon reviewing it, I discovered that there were a lot of things that sounded interesting. Besides, a lot of software and other technology is picked out by the paralegals, so as program chair, I should take more of an interest.

That's why I'm headed to the ABA Legal Tech Show on Thursday, March 16, for the day.

Of course, stuff like this makes it more palatable:

Linda, I wanted to personally invite you to this year’s “MyCase Law & Disorder” party .... The Law & Disorder party is going to be BIG! Join us for: An evening of fun with friends & colleagues Appetizers, open bar, and live music Giveaways, a special photo booth, and more! Or, on the other end of the spectrum: Start the conference off in the right frame of mind! Meet us bright and early Thursday ... for a forty-five minute yoga session to get your blood flowing and open your mind to the day's events. We'll have custom Clio mats that you can take with you, enabling you to use them for a moment of Zen throughout the conference. Yep, that's the sort of thing making it's way into my inbox with one week to go. I just didn't want you to feel too sorry for me, spending one of my spring break days at a law conference....😊

Interesting Study on the Economic Impact of Legal Aid

The ABA published this article about the Economic Impact of Legal Aid in today's ABA Journal:

Legal aid spending has a seven-fold economic impact, Florida study finds

Posted Feb 02, 2017 12:23 pm CST

By Debra Cassens Weiss

---

inShare5

Every dollar spent on civil legal aid for low-income Florida residents creates $7 in economic impact, according to a study released on Thursday.
The study, commissioned by the Florida Bar Foundation, found that one of the biggest economic impacts of legal aid stems from helping low-income people obtain federal benefits, money that is then spent in Florida, according to a press release and executive summary.
Legal aid also saves money for governments that don’t have to provide emergency shelter because of help provided to tenants and low-income homeowners, the study found. And it saves money for the homeowners and lenders who avoid foreclosure costs.

Intrigued? You can read the full article here.

US Supreme Court News

History was made yesterday at the US Supreme Court, and not because of a court ruling. For the first time ever, the female attorneys (counting arguing attorneys and Supreme Court justices) outnumbered the male attorneys.

You go, girls!

IHSAA v. Cade

Many of you will recall that IHSAA v. Cade was the subject of this year's Appeals on Wheels oral argument. The Court of Appeals issued its opinion today. You can read the court's opinion here.

This Weekend's Legal News

Unless you live under a rock--and hey, I'm not judging--you heard that Justice Scalia passed away over the weekend. This has opened up even more craziness than the current election cycle had going for it already, if such a thing is possible. Lawyers and anyone aware of the average human lifespan have long been aware that the next president will probably be picking 2-3 justices, minimum, but this seems to have come as a surprise to our presidential candidates. Huh.

Anyway, now what?

Justice Scalia's vote will be removed from any decision that had not been published at the time of his death. The Supreme Court's decisions are not official until they are published, and--as we recently discussed in PARA 101--it's not unusual for a justice to change his or her mind, even at the very last minute. Since dead justices cannot vote, his vote will simply be stricken from any unissued decision. If that means that the decision is now 4-4, the lower court ruling will stand. The Supremes need a majority to overturn a lower court decision.

Can they opt to re-hear the case once they have the full complement of 9 justices? Sure, but who knows when that will be?

Can Obama nominate someone even though he's a lame-duck president? Of course. I have no idea where certain senators have gotten a different idea. Realistically, given the climate in the Senate, his nomination stands a slim chance of being approved. But he can nominate someone on his last day in office if he wants. The nomination process takes a while, even under the best of circumstances. Rest assured that there is a staff member or a committee that has had an eye on people already for just this sort of contingency. Those people will be contacted to assess their interest, their backgrounds will be thoroughly vetted, and they will be given practice interviews to prepare them for the process of appearing before the Senate.

Incidentally, while I have never made a secret of the fact that I disagreed most strongly with Scalia on points of law, I have always marveled at his ability to bridge ideological gaps in his personal life. His closest friend on the court was Justice Ginsburg, probably our most liberal justice, and I just learned today that he was a strong advocate for Justice Kagan, another liberal and my personal favorite.

Dog Lawyers?

(Not to be confused with the dogs on the Supreme Court thing.)

How can I not post this? From today's ABA Journal:

Dog lawyer also advocates for parakeet

Posted Feb 02, 2016 05:00 pm CST

By Martha Neil

---

inShare4

Boston Dog Lawyers specializes in the defense of canines deemed to be recalcitrant.
That can be a tough gig: At least once, attorney Jeremy Cohen told the Boston Herald, a client bit him.
“It’s kind of hard to advocate for a dog in a dog-biting case when he bites you,” Cohen said, “but I don’t have to disclose it. Attorney-client privilege.”
However, owners can be very attached to their pets, treating them as family members, so such legal representation is much-needed.
And it isn’t only dogs who benefit from his services: The owner of a parakeet sought his help in recouping some $5,000 in veterinary bills that resulted from claimed malpractice.
Due to improper restraint of the bird during treatment, he essentially bit off its own toe, Cohen says, which is a significant problem because the parakeet needs to sleep while perched.
“The woman said to me, ‘I don’t have any children. This is my baby.’ ” Cohen recounted. “So it’s serious to her.”

Bizarre Legal Story of the Day

Here's a story out of Portland, Oregon. In Portland, it appears that it is legal to ride a bicycle while naked, but not to play the violin. 

I can't make this stuff up. 

Our would-be naked violinist is bringing a civil rights suit in an effort to make sense of it all for us. Kudos. 

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/naked_man_arrested_after_playing_violin_outside_federal_courthouse_seeks_1 

The Saga of Frank the Cat

Last post of the day. As you can tell, I had a lot pent up. 

Anyway, this is a great contract case out of Cincinnati. It's got a sick cat named Frank, an attorney with the email handle fasteddie, and the Holy Grail. You gotta know I can't resist this. It turns out to be a "meeting of the minds" problem.

Who says the law isn't a good time?

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/courts/2015/01/21/sick-cat-big-bill-upset-owners-lawsuit/22119247/