I’ve by no means been a fan of the lottery.
In fourth grade, I pooled collectively my chore cash (a grand whole of $6), handed it over to my dad, and began developing with names for the horse I’d purchase with my winnings. After all (and fortunately for my mother and father, who had no real interest in caring for a 900-lb horse along with two youngsters), this didn’t work out. I later realized about my dismal odds from a Nationwide Geographic Youngsters journal: I used to be hundreds of occasions extra prone to be struck by lightning than win the Powerball.
So, naturally, I used to be skeptical when Zach, SCOTUSblog’s government editor, requested me to enter into and write a narrative on the Supreme Court docket’s lottery system, which permits members of the general public to use on-line to obtain tickets to oral argument. In spite of everything was mentioned and executed, I anticipated to jot down up just a few paragraphs successfully saying that I gave it a go, acquired denied, and that was that. Thirty-three days after coming into my identify into the Supreme Court docket’s surprisingly easy-to-use on-line lottery system, nevertheless, I used to be strolling from the metro at Union Station to the Supreme Court docket for my first dwell oral argument. Just like the lottery system, it additionally turned out a bit otherwise from what I used to be anticipating.
***
From time immemorial (or not less than it looks as if that), public seating to look at the justices in motion has solely been accessible on a first-come, first-served foundation. This implies attending to the courtroom as early as potential, after which ready in line to enter the hallowed halls of One First Road. However merely being in line is hardly sufficient to safe entry: Though the courtroom holds 400 folks, relatively few of these seats are devoted to members of the general public.
Now this may not be an issue in some run-of-the-mill instances. In blockbusters, nevertheless, all bets are off. Some camp out in a single day (often within the freezing chilly) with hopes of moving into the courtroom, whereas the much less savory amongst us could even pay someone to carry their place. (The courtroom in 2015 prohibited lawyers from hiring line standers for the Supreme Court docket bar line, however it isn’t particularly prohibited for the general public line – and beginning at $60/hour, hiring somebody to take action for an enormous case may be pricey, and not at all assured, for the reason that tickets themselves state that “there can be no substitutions of individuals.”)
It was thus an enormous deal when, final December, the courtroom (which isn’t precisely a fan of change) announced plans for a brand new, pilot lottery system. Within the press launch, the courtroom famous that, whereas some seating would stay for the general public the old style manner, “[i]ndividuals who obtain tickets via the lottery will be capable to come to the Court docket figuring out that they’ve reserved seating for a specific argument or non-argument session.” The announcement additionally famous that the lottery closes at 5 p.m. EST 4 weeks earlier than every argument; candidates are notified by e mail three weeks earlier than an argument session in the event that they’re a winner.
***
However how does it work in observe?
After Zach instructed me to undergo the method, I did what any Zoomer would do – acquired on TikTok. Simply kidding – I googled “join supreme courtroom lottery.” The second hyperlink down was a SCOTUSblog article by Amy from final December, which I dutifully learn, earlier than going again to Google and clicking the highest outcome: “Supreme Court docket of america (.gov) On-line Ticketing – Request – Welcome – Supreme Court docket.” From there, issues went way more easily than I anticipated from a authorities web site – you simply click on the blue button on the middle center of the web page labeled “proceed,” and confirm that you just aren’t a robotic (which already feels considerably dated).
I formally entered the lottery on Oct. 8 for 5 separate November arguments. One entry applies per particular person or per group – which means when you’ve got a bunch, it’s (in idea) weighted equally as particular person entries. I chosen all of the dates and periods I may, clicking on every November sitting date and argument – together with Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on Nov. 5, Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety and The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal on Nov. 10, and Fernandez v. United States and Rutherford v. United States on Nov. 12.
After clicking “submit,” I instantly acquired an e mail, albeit one asking me to validate the ticket request – it appears the courtroom was immediate about ensuring I used to be certain that I needed to submit my tickets. Though I used to be given 4 hours to validate the request from my e mail, I did it throughout the minute out of concern of forgetting.
From there, it was a ready sport.
At 1:08 a.m. on Oct. 15 (I wasn’t awake) I used to be emailed concerning the large one: Studying Sources. “Pricey Nora [my middle name] Collins, The Court docket is just not in a position to accommodate your request for ticket(s) for the listed Court docket session(s). If you’re fascinated by attending different session(s), please click on right here to start a brand new request. When you’ve got entered the lottery for session(s) that aren’t listed under, you’ll obtain a separate e mail for that lottery.” No shock there – this was the tariffs case, in any case, which even the president claimed that he may attend. However not all hope was misplaced – I nonetheless had 4 “tickets” pending.
At 1:03 a.m. on Oct. 20 (after this, I put two and two collectively that notification emails usually got here round 1 a.m.) I obtained an e mail saying I had been positioned on a waitlist(!) for the Landor case. A minute later, I obtained an e mail saying the courtroom was not in a position to accommodate my request for GEO Group (are people actually that within the appealability of by-product sovereign immunity underneath the collateral-order doctrine?).
Two days later, I obtained the identical information concerning Fernandez and Rutherford – which means my final likelihood was with Landor, for which I used to be nonetheless waitlisted.
At 1 a.m. on Oct. 23, an e mail popped into my inbox with the topic line: “Time delicate motion required for 11/10/25 ticket request.” “Pricey Nora [my middle name] Collins, Your request for ticket(s) to the Court docket session(s) listed under was chosen through the lottery course of. … Please declare your ticket(s) by clicking the affirm button under. If you don’t affirm inside 24 hours, the seat(s) can be reassigned.”
I acquired on my laptop computer at 9 a.m. the following morning and did as instructed. The e-mail included some extra particulars on the .pdf ticket itself (you may print it or current it on a cell gadget), safety (carry your ID, don’t carry issues on the strictly prohibited gadgets list – together with your bag, if it’s bigger than 18” extensive by 14” excessive by 8.5” deep), arrive not less than an hour earlier than the session at 10 a.m., and maybe most significantly for anybody who requests a ticket sooner or later: a warning about cancellation. In case you don’t attend, and don’t cancel your ticket beforehand, you may be disqualified from future lotteries.
On Nov. 7, I obtained a reminder e mail. “How may I neglect?”, I assumed.
***
The day of, at roughly 8:15 a.m., I acquired off at Union Station and walked about quarter-hour to the courtroom, which I approached from First Road NE. The constructing was bigger than I had imagined, though it wasn’t fairly the proper stock photo given the scaffolding and metallic fence that now pens every part in. The realm was comparatively empty – just some guards contained in the perimeter. I waited for just a few seconds by the sting of the fence earlier than displaying one of many safety personnel my ticket QR code and explaining that I had obtained a ticket via the general public lottery. He then instructed me to go to both the left or proper aspect of the courtroom (or as I might be taught later, the Northwest or Southwest doorways).
As I walked to the left aspect, an officer stopped me: I used to be nonetheless carrying my espresso (food and drinks are completely prohibited within the constructing, not less than for the hoi polloi). Despite the fact that it was partly cloudy, the white marble of the surface of the courtroom was putting – I hadn’t been in a position to respect it given the scaffolding from the entrance.
After strolling via the glass-paneled double doorways, I went via metallic detectors virtually instantly – placing my jacket, metallic hair clip, bag, and cellphone (noting the time: it was 8:38 a.m.) via the machine, earlier than I walked via the magnetometer. Since there was just one particular person in entrance of me, I acquired via rapidly and ultimately discovered a desk with the particular person processing the tickets, who handed me a wristband, marked what I assume was my identify on a chunk of paper, and instructed me to go left. I headed down the hallway and was instructed to attend in a line held by a belt stanchion.
As I took a breath, I noticed that I used to be standing in a hallway lined with much more marble. In entrance of me, eight folks stood in line to the fitting of an indication commemorating the White and Taft courts (1910-1930). Portraits of Twentieth-century justices had been additionally spaced each few ft. To my again was Justice Joseph Lamar, and throughout from me had been Justices William Day, Willis Devanter, and Pierce Butler (legends all).
By 9 a.m., the road steadily grew longer, to about 60 folks. Though I had assumed everybody within the line had gotten in by way of the lottery, I quickly realized the person behind me had executed it the old style manner: Starting at round 4:30 a.m., he had stood in line holding a coloured numbered card (at present’s being purple) which marked his line place (handed out and assigned sequentially primarily based on order of arrival) – he mentioned safety had let the primary eight or so folks from the road in together with the lottery ticket holders. Behind him, I used to be heartened to see two folks scrolling SCOTUSblog’s case web page for Landor.
Round 9:10 a.m., a safety officer shushed the road – with the marble flooring, sound was echoing and the road had gotten comparatively talkative. Seven minutes later, once I was studying concerning the Judiciary Act of 1925 on the White and Taft signal, one other officer introduced that everybody within the line ought to “have both a blue wristband or a ticket from an officer. When you’ve got a silver wristband, you’re within the mistaken place.” (I nonetheless have no idea what a silver wristband signifies, however my guess is it was for folks with lottery tickets for the second argument.) At 9:21 a.m., a safety guard gave further directions and led the road to a small room of sq. metallic lockers to retailer our belongings. On the best way there, we handed by the “nineteenth century Justices” hallway and reveals, in addition to the customer’s desk – all of which had been roped off. The road, at this level, had conglomerated right into a mass, with some people pushing forward to get to the lockers first – so my spot was all of a sudden misplaced.
After jamming my bag into the locker, I ended up being one of many final ones to stroll up the marble stairs. However my tardiness was fortuitous – as I used to be ready in line to undergo a second metallic detector, U.S. Solicitor Common D. John Sauer walked inside 5 ft of me. I smiled at him, and he smiled again.
Upon arriving on the courtroom, I used to be positioned within the middle aisle, behind one chair and with a transparent view of all 9 justices. Having familiarized myself with the courtroom by way of Amy’s “nuts and bolts” piece from 2020, I acknowledged this as an “overflow seat,” however an excellent one.
***
My first impression of the courtroom was that it was surprisingly intimate for such a grand establishment – akin to a big, very critical lounge. The room appeared prefer it was constructed to carry historical past, from the tan and brown marbled columns to the ceiling’s purple squares with floral motifs. I had an ideal sightline down the middle aisle: six quick rows of benches for the bar, then one row of wood chairs, then a single chair, then me, pressed up towards a left-hand pole.
The room stuffed rapidly. Clerks in darkish fits darted round with their small round pins; just a few others wore silver pins with the courtroom’s façade on them. Above the bench, extra clerks stood watch, one often shushing the gallery like a librarian would in a room of youngsters. The 2 large flags flanked the justices’ chairs. The massive clock learn 10 minutes to 10 a.m., its hand frozen at 45 levels up and to the left.
Near 10 a.m. (I couldn’t put on a wise watch), the heavy wood doorways thudded shut. Purple curtains held again with thick gold cords framed the bench. Then the crier cried “Oyez [hear ye]! Oyez [hear ye]! Oyez [hear ye]!” and all rose. The justices entered via the middle curtain, and so they rapidly took their chairs.
Total, the justices appeared as skilled and clever as of their portraits and footage, but additionally (disappointingly? comfortingly?) regular. Justices Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh shared a fast snicker as they settled in. Justice Samuel Alito instantly propped his head on his left hand, trying faintly bored. Justice Amy Coney Barrett sipped from a white mug and appeared ahead, on alert. Justice Neil Gorsuch placed on studying glasses, rested each elbows on the bench, and cradled his cheeks like he was watching a film he’d already seen twice. Justice Clarence Thomas leaned far again in his chair together with his arms folded (as arguments commenced, he leaned additional and additional again). Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s necklace caught the sunshine each time she turned. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s head barely cleared the highest of her microphone – or as I wrote in my notes, “[Kagan] is a neck above [Sotomayor].”
Earlier than argument started, a handful of attorneys had been admitted to the bar. The motions had been granted perfunctorily, however there was a ceremonial really feel to it nonetheless. Then the chief acknowledged the primary advocate in Landor, and arguments started.
What adopted was almost two hours of sharp authorized questions across the Spiritual Land Use and Institutionalized Individuals Act, acceptable reduction, and legal responsibility. Thomas requested the primary query, adopted by Sotomayor who requested a hypothetical. Gorsuch tried to get a yes-or-no reply (unsuccessfully), which led Barrett to remind Zachary Tripp, representing Damon Landor, “You by no means gave Justice Gorsuch a yes-or-no, counsel.” Justice Felix Frankfurter as soon as complained that the acoustics within the courtroom had been so muffled they need to be declared unconstitutional, and I’d must agree. It was arduous for me to listen to at occasions, particularly Jackson, who on the far right end of the bench was furthest from my seat.
When it ended, the justices exited utilizing the identical purple curtains. We shuffled out, and that was that.
***
So what did I be taught?
One, regardless of the cynical age by which we dwell, attending a Supreme Court docket oral argument stays a robust civic ritual, which anybody keen to get up (at occasions, very) early to face in line or enter their identify into the lottery can theoretically make occur. Though a lot may be gained from listening to oral argument on the courtroom’s web site or studying via the oral argument transcripts after the very fact, being there actually is a distinction in sort: solely in particular person are you able to watch a number of the nation’s most proficient advocates seem on the federal judiciary’s highest stage, dueling over competing statutory interpretations, century-old precedents, and artistic hypotheticals. As for the justices themselves, sitting 20 or so ft away from the very best bench within the land made them appear way more, properly, regular, turning the justices from abstractions into actual human beings – one thing it’s fairly wholesome to be reminded of.
Two, the courtroom’s pilot lottery system is surprisingly simple to make use of, and certain beats ready in line for hours. The e-mail updates clearly outlined the method because it was occurring (i.e., that I used to be waitlisted, then granted a ticket), so it felt surprisingly clear, particularly for a department of presidency which isn’t often called such. Newbie’s luck or not, I submitted seven new requests on Nov. 18 – so we’ll see if lightning strikes twice.
Posted in Court Analysis, Featured