Supreme Court Decorum Tested: Rising Tensions and Heated Exchanges

The Supreme Court, traditionally a bastion of decorum and respectful discourse, has witnessed a noticeable shift in its atmosphere this term. Justices have engaged in unusually sharp exchanges with each other and with lawyers during oral arguments, a trend fueled, in part, by a surge of emergency appeals stemming from the previous administration. While such interactions might be commonplace in other legal settings, their occurrence at the Supreme Court is noteworthy, as they deviate from the court’s long-standing commitment to civility. Some observers with decades of experience covering the high court have described the recent behavior as unprecedented.

Here’s a closer look at two high-profile incidents that have recently made headlines, highlighting the growing tensions within the Supreme Court:

Alito and Sotomayor Clash over LGBTQ+ Issues in Schools

Last month, Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor engaged in a brief but pointed disagreement during oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor. This case centers on the presence of LGBTQ+-related books in elementary schools and whether parents with religious objections should have the right to opt their children out of exposure to such material.

The exchange was triggered by Sotomayor’s questioning of Eric Baxter, the attorney representing the Mahmoud side, about the book "Uncle Bobby’s Wedding," a story depicting a same-sex relationship. Sotomayor inquired whether exposure to such books could be considered a form of coercion.

Baxter began to respond when Alito interjected, stating, "I’ve read that book as well as a lot of these other books. Do you think it’s fair to say that all that is done in ‘Uncle Bobby’s Wedding’ is to expose children to the fact that there are men who marry other men?"

Baxter objected to Alito’s characterization, prompting Alito to argue that the book conveys a clear message, albeit one that conflicts with the beliefs of some individuals with traditional religious views.

Sotomayor attempted to interject, saying, "What a minute, the reservation is–"

Alito, visibly frustrated, cut her off, saying, "Can I finish?" He continued, "It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with."

This heated exchange drew criticism from some quarters. Jonathan Turley, a Fox News contributor, commented on social media that there is a growing heat to the exchanges between the justices. While the Alito-Sotomayor disagreement made some court-watchers uncomfortable, it was overshadowed by a subsequent incident.

Gorsuch Scolds Litigator in Disability Rights Case

A week later, a particularly tense exchange unfolded between Justice Neil Gorsuch and Lisa Blatt, a seasoned litigator from the firm Williams & Connolly. This occurred during oral arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case concerning whether school districts can be held liable for discriminating against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Gorsuch admonished Blatt, who represented the public schools in the case, after she accused the opposing side of "lying." The intensity of the exchange was remarkable, even by Supreme Court standards. Observers noted that they had rarely, if ever, seen Gorsuch so visibly angry, and that it was unusual for counsel to accuse the other side of lying.

"You believe that Mr. Martinez and the Solicitor General are lying? Is that your accusation?" Gorsuch challenged Blatt.

Blatt responded assertively, "Yes, absolutely."

Gorsuch warned Blatt that counsel "should be more careful with their words."

Blatt retorted, "OK, well, they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect."

Minutes later, Gorsuch revisited the accusation, stating, "Ms. Blatt, I confess I’m still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied. I’d ask you to reconsider that phrase. You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying, lying is another matter." He then began to read quotations that Blatt had submitted to the court, before she interrupted him.

"I’m not finished," Gorsuch asserted, raising his voice.

"Fine," Blatt responded.

Gorsuch then directly requested that Blatt retract her accusation. "Withdraw your accusation, Ms. Blatt," he demanded.

"Fine, I withdraw," she snapped back.

Plaintiffs in the case stated in rebuttal that they would not dignify the name-calling.

The exchange sparked considerable online discussion. Raffi Melkonian, an experienced appeals court litigator, remarked on social media, "I’ve never heard Justice Gorsuch so angry."

Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, commented, "Both of those moments literally stopped me in my tracks. You might want to listen somewhere where you can cringe in peace."

Mark Joseph Stern, a court reporter for Slate, described the exchange as "extremely tense" and characterized Blatt’s behavior as "indignant and unrepentant."

These incidents underscore a growing sense of tension and frustration within the Supreme Court, a departure from the institution’s traditional emphasis on civility and collegiality. The long-term implications of these trends remain to be seen, but they raise concerns about the court’s ability to maintain its reputation for impartiality and reasoned deliberation. The rise in emergency appeals, coupled with deep ideological divisions, seem to be contributing factors to this shift in courtroom dynamics. Whether this is a temporary anomaly or a sign of a more profound change within the Supreme Court remains to be observed.