The court should hold oral argument outside of the capital

My latest installment on SCOTUSBlog urges the Justices to get out of the beltway, and hold oral argument across the fruited plane.

The most likely sites would be the courthouses where the federal courts of appeals sit en banc, or all together: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit sits in Boston, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit sits in Manhattan, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit sits in Philadelphia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit sits in Richmond, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit sits in New Orleans, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit sits in Cincinnati, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit sits in Chicago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit sits in St. Louis, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit primarily sits in San Francisco, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit sits in Denver, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit sits in Atlanta. These cities fully represent the different regions of our glorious republic. (The D.C. Circuit, which is a few blocks from the Supreme Court, does not count.) The justices would see New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, the Deep South, the Midwest, the West, and what Justice Antonin Scalia called the “vast expanse in-between.” All of these courthouses are equipped with benches to seat the nine members of the Supreme Court. There would also be chambers where the justices and their clerks could work. These federal buildings are already secure, and could provide the appropriate accommodations for the justices.

I also think the Justices should hold goodwill missions that are not part of book tours. They could promote the reputation of the Court without changing any opinions:

When the justices visit a city, they should perform official good will missions. Justices should visit law schools and other educational institutions. Even better, the justices should go in pairs, so the public can see how justices who do not agree with each other can still engage in a civil fashion. Justice Elena Kagan’s recent congressional testimony with Justice Amy Coney Barrett provides a model of civility. These events would not be book talks. I find it problematic that justices, or at least their staff, have apparently prodded groups to purchase books when hosting them. The purpose of these events would simply be to speak to the next generation.

But the purpose of these missions is not just to speak. To borrow from Barrett’s new book, the justices should also listen. The justices should hold private meetings with local constituencies to hear how the law affects them. Groups could include government officials, police departments, prosecutors, civil rights groups, public defenders, and others. I don’t know how often the justices hear from regular folk about the law. The justices largely reside in their own bubbles. These missions would be an effort to pierce those bubbles. Still, these gatherings could become opportunities to grandstand, so all recording devices would be strictly prohibited.

The justices should also meet with the local press. These reporters might have questions that members of the Supreme Court press group do not. On book tours, the justices will sometimes answer pre-approved questions or speak to favorable outlets. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pals around on The View while Barrett chats on Fox News. The justices should not be so guarded. If a reporter asks a question that is inappropriate, the justice can decline to answer. But there is always much that can be said. And I think the press would be impressed with how carefully the justices answer questions.

So far, my posts on SCOTUSBlog have generated broad consensus. My next one probably will not.