Busy month for Clement; a down arg in Cox & then a masterpiece here. I’d say listen to the whole thing, but at least check out m58, jumping on Kavanugh’s constant skepticism that Ps position means securities actions in state court only: “There’s circus music playing over here.”

Is there any worse feeling in SCOTUS oral args than being roughed-up all down the line, only to see the Respondent’s attorney with a little smile, waiting to jump in the ring? And that attorney is Paul Clement? I’d want to quit.

Also nice m105 moment where Sotomayor loses her notes, says “I don’t do this often,” and asks Gorsuch to repeat the question for her. “I’d be delighted!”

Waxman - like in Glossip last term, I’m not sure he’s hammering on the right point to get a majority. But he won Glossip (Clement helped), so he re-runs some of that strategy. Often takes extra time, leading to m101 yes/no from Kavanaugh. Gives-in by Alito qs and stops talking.

Graver - better job in patience and adaptability to work with the court to craft a favorable opinion for Ps.

Overing - a bit emotional with Sotomayor; needs to work to keep his cool. Hard qs in death cases to be expected. m3 lost a bit of credibility with Roberts right away by allowing holistic upwards IQ exams, but not downwards (which favor Ds). But nice crisp rebuttal arg at end.

m114 Kagan finally takes a jab at a troubling theme throughout the arg - is it really SCOTUS’s job to tinker with the speech mix to prop up political parties? Why would Kavanaugh in particular, usually reticent about policy-making, be so into tinkering here?

Elias - Shored-up many of Martinez’s weaknesses with deep expertise (maybe that was the plan), weaved w/args that give election regs a shot.

m83 safe harbor question unanswered (Elias answers later), m86 bait-and-switch lingo that should hold purchase with liberal justices, but less bite for the rest. m101 Sotomayor: we’re both borrowing from my sister, Justice Ginsburg (re: umbrella metaphor).

Martinez - Now documentary star! youtu.be/aRMlIHg0fWo?...

SCOTUS-appointed amicus here, but a bit ill-suited to this particular job. Strengths were tell-it-like-it-is on the slippery slope, but weak on substance and expertise at points. Always a compelling orator though.

All heavy-hitters for this one.

Francisco & Harris are a potent tag team, making a mix of policy & speech args to keep the Court going on a speech-optimized approach to election regs. Some quieter key players (Roberts, Barrett) creates slight doubt about a P win, but not much.

i’m back

Butler - Did a very nice job repping the MS bar. m77 Jackson throwing some shade at CASA.

Robertson - Even harder for gov to try to support P without creating habeas vulnerabilities. m48 Alito: give me a simple summary of what the rule should be. [Robertson gives a long answer] Alito: that’s pretty complicated but thank you.

Ho - Tough to narrow Heck when the language is so broad, but good effort. m17 reference to Oldham always kinda interesting when your spouse is his colleague & competitor for the next SCOTUS seat.

Suri, earlier: ultra vires is an option m34 Kavanaugh: ultra vires is impossible though. Suri: yes, exactly! m58 Iyer defending lack of jurisdiction despite near 100% chill Barrett: really? Gorsuch [interjection] Kagan: Could I just get an answer to my question?

m82 Gorsuch: “You had a brief from some IP lawyers that say that you're wrong” (disclosure: I’m a signatory to that brief) “Well, you had another IP brief that said I’m right.” (I didn’t sign that one!) m88 “I don’t want to speak against...well, my other clients...”