Minnesota Lawyer Blog

Minneapolis attorney and judicial candidate Jill Clark has lost her last-ditch bid for federal relief in her effort to remove the name of her opponent, Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea, from the primary ballot, or, in the alternative, to prevent Gildea from being identified an an incumbent.

A special panel appointed for the purpose of hearing Clark's state Supreme Court petition had denied the contentious candidate's request for relief hours after arguments in the case. Clark then sought relief from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, the circuit justice for the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, asking him to prevent the "unconstitutional text" from the ballot. (Clark had argued, among other things, that identifying the incumbent as such on the ballot violates the state Constitution.)

On Sept. 5, without further comment, Alito denied Clark's application for an injunction.

Two other candidates -- Hennepin County District Court Judge Deborah Hedlund and Hennepin County assistant public defender Richard Gallo -- are also challenging Gildea in tomorrow's primary. The top two vote-getters will earn a place on the November ballot.

Minneapolis attorney Mary Vasaly recently returned from a trip to Washington, D.C., where she had a chance to hear from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on appellate advocacy. At today’s Minnesota CLE Appellate Practice Institute, she passed along two nuggets of advice Alito shared.

The first was that amicus briefs shouldn’t repeat the arguments of the litigants, but should present the case in a new light. That makes sense.

The other comment was interesting. According to Vasaly, Alito said he frequently only reads the summary-of-the-arguments in briefs. (Supreme Court briefs can be up to 15,000 words long.) Thus, it's important to pack as much information into that section as possible – but concisely.

I’m not sure how I feel about the justices not reading the entire briefs.

The U. S. Supreme Court yesterday heard oral arguments in a closely watched employment law case. The high court has been asked to decide whether a plaintiff suing for employment discrimination can introduce so called "me too" evidence. (Click here for more.) DC Dicta -- a blog run by our national sister publication, Lawyers USA -- actually found something funny to report on in a pretty serious case.

With the new attorney general and the solicitor general looking on, Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre argued the government's amicus position. Garre is a seasoned attorney who once clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, but that did not stop him from inadvertently misstating the name of one of the justices.

In another otherwise articulate response to question from Justice Samuel Alito, Garre mistakenly referred to Alito as "Justice Scalia." (Alito and Scalia sit three seats apart.) There are, of course, liberal blogs that might say we are splitting hairs differentiating between the two conservative justices. Nonetheless, the slip up -- which went otherwise uncommented on --reportedly drew chuckles from the press gallery.

I am just glad to know that even the most seasoned lawyers get nervous when they argue a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.