Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].
In an intriguing law review article, two professors explore, as the abstract asserts, that the “open secret of Supreme Court advocacy in a digital era is that there is a new way to argue to the Justices. Today’s Supreme Court arguments are developed online: They are dissected and explored in blog posts, fleshed out in popular podcasts, and analyzed and re-analyzed by experts who do not represent parties or have even filed a brief in the case at all. This “virtual briefing” (as we call it) is intended to influence the Justices and their law clerks but exists completely outside of traditional briefing rules.”
Is this real? Is it effective? The authors answer “yes”. Click here or below to read the article from the Cornell Law Review yourself.
* * *
Jeffery J. Ventrella is Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs & Training and Senior Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom and a member of the Federalist Society's Religious Liberties Practice Group Executive Committee.
