a commonplace book of this & that in american political life
GWorks Interviews: Tom Goldstein (Part 1)
That Guy With the Web Site
Tom Goldstein (TG)—[00:00:43:04] Our focus is almost exclusively on Supreme Court litigation. We represent the parties in about one out of every ten Supreme Court cases through either the law firm or the clinics that we have at the law schools. And so we do arguments on the merits and lots of Cert. petitions [petitions for a Writ of Certiorari], briefs in opposition, amicus briefs. We’re just very focused on that one place.
[00:01:12:03] The clinics at Stanford and Harvard are an outgrowth of the law firm’s pro bono practice. So, when I first started in Supreme Court litigation, I was mostly doing cases for free, pro bono cases to try to build up experience. And so, I had a whole collection of that work. And my thinking was, you know, ‘who is it that would be really interested in contributing their time and effort to pro bono work?’ And I just thought, ‘Well, law students would be perfect for this.’
I had actually gotten my best experience as a law student as an unpaid Intern for [National Public Radio legal affairs correspondent] Nina Totenberg. And that’s how I got interested in Supreme Court work. And I thought law students would have a similar reaction.
I also thought that, as someone who had gone to American University’s law school [Washington College of Law], rather than one of the nation’s elite law schools, and it was a fantastic school for me, I really thought that this was work that law students could do, if they were committed to it and had the time to do it and had the right supervision. It’s not something that only someone who clerked for the Supreme Court and worked in the Solicitor General’s office could do.
[00:02:18:17] The clinics are at elite universities?
[00:02:23:17] They are at elite universities.
They’re great opportunities for us to work with really talented law students and they’ve...having the affiliation with the law schools has been tremendous for the law practice, too. So, we definitely try to get as...the...a really talented group of people involved in the cases. But, I think we could do the clinics at other law schools, as well. And there are clinics at Texas [University of Texas at Austin School of Law] and UVA [University of Virginia School of Law] and Northwestern [Northwestern University School of Law], in addition to Yale [Yale Law School]. And so, a lot of schools have recognized the value of these sorts of programs.
[00:02:58:24] Would you describe the commitment of a student and a law school to do a Supreme Court Litigation clinic?
[00:03:03:24] Sure.
The law students at Stanford and Harvard really are completely committed to the effort. The great thing about those programs is, when they’re running, the law students work on the cases essentially full time. They’re not part of a broader curriculum in that semester—or that quarter at Stanford. They have almost no other to no other classes at all. So, at Stanford, if you’re not an ‘advanced student,’ i.e., you’re not doing it for the second time, you’re really not going to have any other course work other than your work on the Clinic. And at Harvard, we do it in the Winter Term, which is a three-week program. And the students actually move to Washington, DC, to work with us in our offices on the cases. So, I think that’s really important to have that complete and utter devotion to the cases so that you can really kind of absorb yourself in them.
The commitment from the law schools is tremendous, to allow the students to spend that much time on the work. And it’s also not cheap because, for Harvard, they move to Washington; for Stanford they go frequently to visit the clients, they come to Washington to see oral arguments and meet people. So, it’s an expensive program for the schools.
[00:04:21:22] What makes a successful Supreme Court litigator?
[00:04:26:22] I think that, to do this job well, you’ve got to have some good writing skills; you’ve got to have really solid analytical skills; and you’ve just got to be able to separate yourself from a lot of the facts and emotions in the cases. You really have to believe and advocate for your client for sure. But, it’s very different from being a trial lawyer. The Supreme Court in particular, the courts of appeals, generally are going to be concerned about getting the law right rather than producing justice in an individual case.
Litigating at the Supreme Court at a high level also involves a lot of understanding that group of nine people and what it is they’re trying to do at different stages, whether they’re agreeing to hear cases, when they’re deciding cases on the merits; understanding the value of the briefing versus the oral argument, the different roles that those play.
As I’ve been doing this now for 15 years, almost entirely that that’s been my overwhelming focus, it gets actually more and more complicated, not simpler and simpler, as you realize all the different layers to the onion that you’re peeling back.
[00:05:39:11] Did you come out of law school saying, ‘I am going to be a Supreme Court litigator’?
[00:05:44:11] Almost.
I had...as...having been Nina Totenberg’s Intern at NPR kind of fallen in love with the Supreme Court. I clerked for a year for...here in DC and then went to a big law firm, Jones Day, which was tremendous for me and had an appellate practice and had an appellate practice and a Supreme Court practice and I got introduced to the actual legal practice there. And then I went to a firm called Boies Schiller [& Flexner, LLP] for a couple of years, which was just starting out, and they let me do some of this work. But, by the time I got to my fourth year in practice, I just went out on my own and decided, ‘I’m going to try to accomplish this myself.’ And so, ever since 1998, 1999, I’ve been doing this almost exclusively.
—End of Part One—
GWorks Interviews: Tom Goldstein
Part One: That Guy With the Web Site
Becoming a Supreme Court litigator
Part Two: SCOTUSblog—Without Papers
Founding a Web site dedicated to
the Supreme Court of the United States,
the site’s evolution and the challenge of
covering the Court without a press pass
What the Court does and might do
in a changing media environment
The Supreme Court decision
in the last Term’s health care case—
understanding the Court through a case
(National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius)
How media (mis)understood
the health care decision
Is the Supreme Court’s last Term
a sign of a new willingness to limit
Federal Power, what role will the Court
play in the coming election and how
can we best understand the Court
For more interviews,
please visit GWorks Interviews
EDITOR’S NOTES
GWorks Interviews: Tom Goldstein was filmed Wednesday 25 July 2012 in the offices of Goldstein & Russell, PC in the District of Columbia. GWorks would like to thank Mr Goldstein for his generous participation and Max Mallory for his work to make this interview happen.
Photo: Tom Goldstein. Courtesy Tom Goldstein.
Photo: SCOTUSblog. Courtesy SCOTUSblog.
1 Tom Goldstein is a founding partner of Goldstein & Russell, PC, a Washington, DC law firm that focuses on Supreme Court litigation. He is also Publisher of SCOTUSblog, the Web site he founded with Amy Howe, Mr Goldstein’s wife, law partner and SCOTUSblog Editor.
GWorks Interviews is a series dedicated to exploring governance issues of interest with persons given to thinking about and having relevant experience. GWorks invites a GWorks Interviewee to respond in depth to questions. GWorks does not edit the substance of what an interviewee says. GWorks edits GWorks Interviews only for editorial and technical considerations including style, length and productions issues. For more, please visit GWorks Interviews.
—Tuesday 31 July 2012—
Introduction
“As I’ve been doing [Supreme Court litigation] now for 15 years...it gets actually more and more complicated, not simpler and simpler, as you realize all the different layers to the onion that you’re peeling back.”
In GWorks Interviews: Tom Goldstein,1 Mr Goldstein discusses his start in law practice, the creation of SCOTUSblog, the challenges of covering the Supreme Court and understanding the Court through media and this Term’s decision in the health care case.
Here, in GWorks Interviews: Tom Goldstein (Part One) That Guy With the Web Site, Mr Goldstein discusses becoming a Supreme Court litigator.
In GWorks Interviews: Tom Goldstein (Part Two) SCOTUSblog—Without Papers, Mr Goldstein discusses founding SCOTUSblog and the challenge of covering the Supreme Court without a press pass.
In GWorks Interviews: Tom Goldstein (Part Three) Courting Media, Mr Goldstein discusses media coverage of the Supreme Court and what the Court does and might do in a changing media environment.
Here, in GWorks Interviews: Tom Goldstein (Part Four) To Your Health, Mr Goldstein discusses the Supreme Court decision in the last Term’s health care case (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius)—understanding the Court through a case.
In GWorks Interviews: Tom Goldstein (Part Five) Airing|Erring, Mr Goldstein discusses the mistaken reporting by CNN and Fox that the Supreme Court had overturned the Affordable Care Act.
In GWorks Interviews: Tom Goldstein (Part Six) Limits, Mr Goldstein discusses whether the Supreme Court’s last Term is a sign of a new willingness to limit Federal Power, what role will the Court play in the coming election and how can we best understand the Court.
Recent GWorks Posts
“I wanted to write about oil in an age of limits and change.” In Private Empire: ExxonMobil & American Power, Steve Coll explores oil’s place in the world by looking at ExxonMobil, the largest company headquartered in the United States, and its place in the United States and abroad as it produces a singular resource and epitomizes American political and economic authority.
Jamie Dimon, President & CEO of JPMorgan Chanse, testifying before Congress, invokes “Old Testament justice”
Love or Confusion—Re-electing Scott Walker
What does the Wisconsin re-call election mean?
In Memoriam—Nicholas de Belleville Katzenbach
Briefly recalling the former US Attorney General and Undersecretary of State, who died 8 May 2012.
John Brennan on the Administration’s counterterrorism policy.
GWorks Interviews: Benjamin Wittes
Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at The Brookings Institution and, together with Jeffrey Rosen, co-Editor of Constitution 3.0: Freedom & Technological Change, discusses his vision for the book and the relationships among technological development, National Security and Constitutional values.
GWorks Interviews: Lawrence Lessig
Harvard Law School Profess and author of Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It discusses Congress, the corrupting influence of money and reform
GWorks Interviews: Jeffrey Rosen
George Washington University Law School Professor and co-editor of Constitution 3.0: Freedom & Technological Change discusses Constitutional values and technological change
President Obama’s annual address to Congress
revisiting Citizens United two years later
an historic speech at the March on Washington to mark the Civil Rights leader’s birth
on the (il)logic of campaign rhetoric
Viewing GOVERNINGWorks
The GOVERNINGWorks Web site is best viewed on the Internet using Chrome, Firefox or Safari. These browsers are available on the Internet for FREE for Mac OS and Windows. Readers may download any of these browsers by following the links in this paragraph.
GWorks Interviews: Tom Goldstein
“As I’ve been doing [Supreme Court litigation] now for 15 years...it gets actually more and more complicated, not simpler and simpler, as you realize all the different layers to the onion that you’re peeling back.”
In GWorks Interviews: Tom Goldstein, Mr Goldstein discusses his start in law practice, the creation of SCOTUSblog, the challenges of covering the Supreme Court of the United States and understanding the Court through media and this Term’s decision in the health care case.
Part One: That Guy With the Web Site
Tuesday 31 July 2012
Becoming a Supreme Court litigator.
“As I’ve been doing [Supreme Court litigation] now for 15 years...it gets actually more and more complicated, not simpler and simpler, as you realize all the different layers to the onion that you’re peeling back.”
Part Two: SCOTUSblog—Without Papers
Thursday 2 August 2012
Founding a Web site dedicated to the Supreme Court of the United States, the site’s evolution and the challenge of covering the Court without a press pass.
“We just view the blog as a public service. It doesn’t have an agenda. It’s not trying to impress any particular set of people anymore. It’s not a business development tool for the law firm. And we just try and accommodate the kinds of folks who are becoming interested in the blog.”
Tuesday 7 August 2012
What the Supreme Court does and might do in a changing media environment.
“I’m a big proponent of televising of the arguments and the decision hand-downs, when they announce the rulings. I think that the Court has legitimate concerns about what it would do to the proceedings.”
Thursday 9 August 2012
Understanding the Supreme Court through this Term’s health care decision (NFIB v. Sebelius).
“For the moment, the Commerce Clause decision really is a one-off. And, I don’t read it is as more than a one-off because it’s not part of a larger body of decisions over the past five years.”
Tuesday 14 August 2012
(Mis)understanding the health care decision.
“It’s a mistake that should not have happened and I don’t think will happen again for a while.”
Thursday 16 August 2012
Is the Supreme Court’s last Term a sign of a new willingness to limit Federal Power, what role will the Court play in the coming election and how can we best understand the Court.
“People are worried about feeding their families and about jobs. And that’s immediate and incredibly consequential. And I just don’t see the Supreme Court breaking through that.”
For more, please visit GWorks Interviews
