SCOTUS – Final Oral Arguments of Calendar Year 2013

Family law is tricky—difficult at best. Even Justice Breyer admitted as much during today’s arguments in Lozano vs. Alvarez. It’s uncommon for The Supreme Court to take up cases that tangentially touch family law-type issues and combined with today being the final day this year for oral arguments I thought I’d better see what it’d be all about. Pleased all the way around. 
Stepping up the giant marble steps I only saw the requisite security staff, not the snaking visitor line I’d expected. Walking up to the closest I asked if the slots were already full–he chuckled somewhat, reminded me I needed to finish my coffee before entering and said I should check with the gal on the other side of the plaza. Asking her for a ticket I was shocked to be awarded such a low number as I didn’t think I was that early. Must be the chilly air keeping out the locals. 
No Lines—Really!

My still-hot-and-nearly-full coffee would not be wasted–I had my ticked so sat on one of the cold marble benches watching the sun crawl up the Capitol building and bounce off a street full of buses and cabs. Inside and after breakfast I joined the line and landed in the middle of a chatty group. The very young couple finishing an internship with the U.S. Marshal’s–their drama was how to deliver a goodbye to her roommate, a Saudi national who apparently is a little full of herself. Mean spirited and self-absorbed summarizes how she described her. Bad mouthing our country yet fully committed to leaving the stay in the U.S. to head either to her mom’s apartment in New Jersey or the family apartment in central California–sounds as if that was all the roommate could talk about. 

We also discussed driver’s ed, one member of our huddle had failed his (in somewhere in the UP of Michigan) three times while an older fella talked about how his Pennsylvania town used to teach them using manual transmissions. Then there was the retiree talking about his RV trips that including crossing Iowa and Nebraska–he was none to kind to the Cornhusker state–repeatedly saying how painful it was to keep driving and see nothing but pasture and the sun on the horizon. Eventually we drew someone into the group who had an actual connection to the first case: he was a NYC native who’s been living in Israel since the early ’70’s. Still carried a bit of the NY dialect with him. He’s a member of the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers– and

well versed in the 83 nations that may be impacted by the decision of the Lozano vs. Alvarez case. He was in the U.S. just for the week and was easily able to articulate the nature of the case–both sides– to our group of relative laypeople. Interesting guy–the kind you’d want to meet for a drink. 

Winning Number 12

Repeating things helps—it’s nice to pick up a trick or two for the next time. I snuck out of line just before we were ushered up to the court room and stuffed my things in a small bank of lockers on the ground floor. That bought me eleven places in line as almost everyone in front of me was scooted off to the upstairs locker room while I was able to turn the corner and jump almost to the front for seating! Point for experience. Seated five rows back (every row in front of me was reserved for family and other VIPS) and lined up directly between Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy I had a near perfect view–minus the part about the VIPs. Actually, however, that turned out well as the wife, mother and three young boys of the petitioner’s attorney was just in front and to the left of me. He, and they, must be regulars—as one of the stereotypical young, long-haired female ushers went up to them to say hello. She mentioned something about the twins and remembered that last time she saw them they had a birthday. As attorney Shawn Regan walked past me on the right his wife noticed him and pointed him out to the boys–Regan turned back just before he entered the Bar area and gave a smile and wink to the kids—very sweet! A little later I heard the same usher wish him good luck. I wonder if that’s appropriate–for staff to take a side over another or if out of general courtesy they wish luck upon everyone. Thankfully we were finally underway—it was the only thing that shut up the fella three seats to my left who chattered non-stop the entire 41 minutes we waited for the justices to enter. 

Transcripts tell most of the story about the struggle all the Justices had with the case–in fact, Regan was unable to even get out his opening statement before Justice Ginsberg leaned in (actually she doesn’t need to lean in much–she sits about three inches from the bench) and cut him off with a couple questions and a comment. That was only the start, being in the courtroom tells the rest of the story. Every Justice–save Thomas who was his typical self–had multiple comments, questions and loads of hypotheticals to run by Regan. None of them could get what they wanted from him. At one time Justice Breyer even blurting, ‘so what have you got going for you?’

Enter the respondent who countered with a seemingly exceptionally young attorney. Couldn’t have been 30–maybe I’m getting old but that seems so young to be presenting such an important case before this court. She, Lauren Moskowitz, received no less of a lashing than did Regan. Once again the court seemed to be unable to get what they wanted. Time after time, often in animated and terse fashion (Scalia and Breyer, respectively) went after her–multiple times asking for a simple yes or no. Credit as well to Justice Alito who came up with the analogy used most often by multiple justices. 

Legal yammering aside…a few moments of humor would be had–and an error as well! During one hypothetical Justice Sotomayor referenced Peoria as a prime location to hide a kidnapped child—while Chief Justice Roberts further explained to the crowd by explaining she’s from New York–and that those from the midwest might find it easier to hide a child in New York. Courtroom broke into a hearty laugh. Except Justice Thomas–he was still busy elsewhere. 
This case seems simple on paper—according to existing international Convention when a child is abducted and taken out of country to one of the 83 participating he/she must be returned within a one year filing period when the abducting parent has hidden the location of the kid from the other parent. Bad explanation but that’s the jest. After hearing arguments it’s so much more and I’m anxiously awaiting the decision in the spring or summer.