Gorscuh scolds Supreme Court litigator in rare, heated exchange
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch scolded an experienced lawyer during oral arguments Monday in a case centered on disability discrimination in public schools – a rare and heated exchange that surprised many longtime court-watchers.
The tense exchange took place during oral arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case centered on whether school districts can be held liable for discriminating against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Gorsuch scolded Williams & Connolly lawyer Lisa Blatt, an experienced Supreme Court litigator representing the Minnesota public schools, for accusing the plaintiffs of "lying" in their assertions before the high court.
Plaintiffs in the case are representing the parents of a girl with severe epilepsy, who sued the public school for refusing to provide at-home school during the morning, an accommodation she would receive in other districts in the state.
The exchange between Gorsuch and Blatt took place after she accused them of lying about the public school's stance.
Counsel "should be more careful with their words," Gorsuch told Blatt in a warning.
"Okay well, they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect," Blatt responded.
Later, he referenced the lying accusation again. "Ms. Blatt," Gorsuch told her, "I confess I'm still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied."
"Okay," she fired back. "Let's pull it up. In oral arguments…"
Gorsuch cut in, telling her, "I think we're going to have to, here. And I'd ask you to reconsider that phrase."
"You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying—" Gorsuch said, before Blatt attempted to interject.
"Ms. Blatt, if I might finish," Gorsuch said, before continuing: "But lying is another matter."
He then started to read through page one of their brief, before she interrupted again.
"I'm not finished," Grouch told her, raising his voice.
"Withdraw your accusation, Ms. Blatt," he then told her of the lying accusation.
"Fine, I withdraw," she shot back.
Plaintiffs said on rebuttal only that they would not dignify the name-calling.
The exchange sparked some buzz online, including from an experienced appeals court litigator, Raffi Melkonian, who noted of the exchange on social media, "I've never heard Justice Gorsuch so angry."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
Supreme Court rejects Republican bid to bar some provisional ballots in Pennsylvania
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has rejected a Republican appeal and left in place a Pennsylvania court decision allowing people to cast provisional ballots when their mail-in votes are rejected for not following technical procedures in state law. The court released the decision Friday, after an 'apparent software malfunction' sent out early notifications about orders that had been slated to be released Monday. A technological error also resulted in an opinion being posted early last year. The justices acted in an appeal filed by the Republican National Committee, the state GOP and the Republican-majority election board in Butler County. Pennsylvania's top court ruled last year that the county must count provisional ballots that were cast by two voters after they learned their mail-in ballots were voided because they arrived without mandatory secrecy envelopes. Pennsylvania Democrats had urged the court to stay out of the case.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
'This is part of the game': Trump cuts out Musk
Donald Trump talked to a long list of media outlets on Friday to make it clear that he's not thinking about or talking to Elon Musk after their feud exploded into public view on Thursday. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court just gave DOGE access to sensitive data held by the Social Security Administration. Michael Steele, Brian Barrett, Nayyera Haq, and Stephen Cloobeck join Stephanie Ruhle for The 11th Hour Nightcap.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Grants Musk-Less DOGE Access to Social Security Data
Elon Musk may be persona non grata at the White House, but DOGE lives on. The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Department of Government Efficiency should be allowed access to Social Security Administration data, lifting a previously issued injunction that blocked the department from doing so. While the court's majority did not provide a detailed explanation of their ruling, they did write, 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.' The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioning the urgency of the application and expressing concerns about the potential privacy risks that would result from the ruling. She wrote, 'In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.' The Trump administration had previously argued that DOGE employees needed access to SSA data in order to halt fraudulent payments, but a federal judge in Maryland ruled that DOGE being granted such access violated federal law and put millions of people's data at risk. Two unions—the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers—brought the lawsuit alongside the Alliance for Retired Americans. The groups argued that allowing DOGE broader access to individuals' personal data would violate the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. 'The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure—and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it," their lawyers wrote. The data DOGE employees now have access to includes Social Security numbers, medical records, and tax and banking information. In her dissent, Jackson argued that the Supreme Court had 'truly lost its moorings,' by allowing the move and bending its usual standards to accommodate the Trump administration, adding, 'The Court is… unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration.'
