Supreme Court Review

Five professors—former clerks—conduct a Supreme Court review

Five BYU law professors, all former law clerks at the Supreme Court of the United States, shared their experiences in the court and their perspectives on recent landmark cases at the Law School in September. Professor RonNell Andersen Jones, who clerked for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, led the discussion, which also included the following four professors:

• Thomas Rex Lee, who clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas
• David H. Moore, who clerked for Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
• Lisa Grow Sun, who clerked for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
• John Fee, who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia.

Students packed into the Moot Court Room, where the review was held, eager to learn from these professors.

“It fascinates me,” said first-year law student Phillip Sumpter. “It’s a good opportunity to apply what we’re learning in our perspectives class—about different types of legal arguments and how to distinguish between them.”

Sumpter is taking courses from two of these professors this semester—Lee and Fee.

Professors discussed four cases that the Supreme Court of the United States decided this year. The cases involved questions of civil procedure, alleged discrimination, criminal procedure, due process/recusal, and government speech/content discrimination. These are the cases each professor introduced, as well as links to the court’s decisions:

• Professor Lee: Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009),
• Professor Moore: Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009),
• Professor Sun: Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009), and,
• Professor Fee: Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (2009).

Lee, in the dialogue, spoke about how professors chose the cases they discussed.

“All of the cases that we’re going to be talking about today,” he said, “are cases that leave more questions unanswered than the one that they answered.”

While discussing the cases, professors also shared insights into the life of a law clerk for the Supreme Court of the United States.

Jones, for example, remembers being at the Court as a clerk when it decided the first in a string of important Confrontation Clause cases that preceded last term’s Melendez-Diaz case, and she recalled discussing the potential implications of the case with fellow clerks.

“I remember, several days in a row, having conversations at lunch with the other clerks about the risks of taking a strict originalist approach in the Confrontation Clause area,” Jones said. She said the law clerks anticipated some of the complexities that presented themselves in Melendez-Diaz, and that they debated “the practical ramifications of [an] originalist vantagepoint.” She noted that “it’s interesting that the foresight that was discussed amongst the clerks at that time is now bearing fruit.”

The panelists indicated that they hope to make the Supreme Court Review an annual event.

Posted: October 02, 2009