Oral Argument 2.0

The Oral Argument Amicus

Oral Argument 2.0 serves as an Oral Argument Amicus: top legal academics, with the benefit of hindsight, provide alternate answers to a handful of questions that the justices posed during recent arguments. Oral Argument 2.0 in no way means to undermine the work of Supreme Court advocates; it aims, instead, to supplement and fortify answers to the most important and challenging queries and to offer additional perspectives. Indeed, our best responses sometimes come to mind after the opportunity to offer a rejoinder has passed—l'esprit d'escalier.


Joseph Blocher
Joseph Blocher Professor, Duke Law
John Blume
John Blume Professor, Cornell Law
Grace Brosofsky
Grace Brosofsky J.D., Cornell Law
Erwin Chemerinsky
Erwin Chemerinsky Dean, Berkeley Law
Sherry F. Colb
Sherry F. Colb Professor, Cornell Law
Michael C. Dorf
Michael C. Dorf Professor, Cornell Law
Anthony Eliseuson
Anthony Eliseuson Litigation Director, Animal Legal Defense Fund
Michael Gerhardt
Michael Gerhardt Professor, UNC Law
Jareb Gleckel
Jareb Gleckel 3L, Cornell Law
Joanna Grossman
Joanna Grossman Professor, SMU Dedman School of Law
David Kemp
David Kemp Professor, Berkeley Law
Andrew Koppelman
Andrew Koppelman Professor, Northwestern Law
Leah Litman
Leah Litman Professor, Michigan Law
Tracey Maclin
Tracey Maclin Professor, BU Law
Burt Neuborne
Burt Neuborne Professor, NYU Law
Eduardo Peñalver
Eduardo Peñalver Dean, Cornell Law
Lawrence Sager
Lawrence Sager Professor, University of Texas Law
Joshua Sealy-Harrington
Joshua Sealy-Harrington J.S.D. Candidate, Columbia Law
Kate Shaw
Kate Shaw Professor, Cardozo Law
Reva Siegel
Reva Siegel Professor, Yale Law
Ilya Somin
Ilya Somin Professor, Antonin Scalia Law
Cristina Stella
Cristina Stella Attorney, Animal Legal Defense Fund
Nelson Tebbe
Nelson Tebbe Professor, Cornell Law
Gerald Torres
Gerald Torres Professor, Yale F&ES
Eugene Volokh
Eugene Volokh Professor, UCLA Law