The Shortest SCOTUS Oral Argument In The Modern Era?

Today I attended oral argument at the Supreme Court. The first case of the day was Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton. This was not exactly a high-profile dispute. I had assigned this case in my Supreme Court simulation class, but I had a personal interest in the dispute. My mom grew up in Seagate, Brooklyn, about three miles from the auto shop. And Daniel Ginzburg represented the petitioner. The solo practitioner from Freehold, New Jersey was making his debut before the Supreme Court. His office was about 30 miles from my childhood home in Staten Island. This case felt very homey for me.

The question presented was fun, but nerdy: “Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.”

Ginzburg told Bloomberg Law that big firms offered to take over the case, but he decided to argue it himself:

He said he rejected big firms’ offer to work with him on this case because he thought this one “had a shot, and I didn’t want to give up the opportunity to argue before the Supreme Court.”

“Ever since law school it was viewed as a big deal,” Ginzburg said. He added he doesn’t see his lack of experience as an issue in a case such as this one, which turns on few facts and a specific legal issue that “only a civil procedure geek would love.”

Ginzburg did not even know his opposing counsel, Lisa Blatt, who has now argued 55 cases before the Supreme Court.

“I had no idea who she was,” said Ginzburg, 45, whose job largely consists of financial services litigation and semi-frequent appearances at state and federal courts in New York and New Jersey.

The arguments were, well short. At the 18-minute mark, the bench became silent. Ginzburg said, “If there are no further questions…” Chief Justice Roberts looked around and said “Thank you counsel.” There was no seriatim round for the Petitioner.

Lisa Blatt presented about 14 minute of argument. Again, the bench was silent. At the 33-minute mark, Blatt said “If there are no questions, we would ask that the decision below be affirmed.” Roberts looked around, and Blatt sat down. Again, no seriatim round. The Chief Justice invited Ginzburg to give a rebuttal. He spoke for about 3 minutes, without questions and sat down.

All told, the argument stretched about 37 minutes. The case started at 10:03 a.m. and concluded at 10:40 a.m.

Was this the shortest SCOTUS argument in the modern era? (By modern era, I am referring to the post-COVID format.) Perhaps a runner-up might be Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist, which was argued after Coney Island. That case lasted only 41 minutes. (I didn’t stick around for the second case; I had a FedSoc talk at the GW chapter at noon.) Maybe everyone on the bench (and me) was more focused on the case that will be argued tomorrow: TARIFFS!

In Coney Island, it seemed clear enough that the Justices had decided that they were going to vote for the Respondent, and didn’t feel the need to ask further questions. Ginzburg was prudent to sit down early. I don’t think arguing further was going to help his cause.

If I had to predict, Justice Jackson will get the assignment. She was extremely active with the questions, and Blatt referenced her by name several times. Justice Alito seemed a bit plussed, and he might write a concurrence. Justice Kavanaugh didn’t say a word.

There were a few funny points.

In this case, virtually all of the circuits adopted a rule favoring petitioner. Justice Alito observed “almost all the courts of appeals have decided this question against you.” Blatt replied:

And I think just last term you ruled against a case I argued when all the courts had gone our way.

The entire court burst out laughing. Justice Thomas let out two huge belly laughs, and was bending back in his chair. He lost it.

Blatt also referred to a judgment issued by a “Court of Clowns.”

And you could –and if it’s concededly, you know, on its face, it’s issued by the court of clowns –

( Laughter.)

MS. BLATT: –you have to give effect to the judgment based on res judicata. And I will say, if you have a court of clowns example, you could probably get rid of that under the independent action for gross injustice.

I don’t think she was referring to the Ninth Circuit…