Lawyer Jason Murray, taking the lead next week in the Supreme Court battle to keep Donald Trump off presidential ballots, has never argued before the justices.
Jonathan Mitchell, representing Trump, is a well-known conservative advocate with some experience at the court – yet none in a case close to this magnitude.
As of Friday, both men will move their operations to Washington and tap into a sophisticated network of lawyers who’ve stood many times in the well of the courtroom and are positioned to channel the justices. Murray and Mitchell will engage in multiple “moot courts,” separately honing their cases before attorneys who fire questions designed to simulate the justices and their intensity.
Story highlights
The two lawyers going head-to-head in the battle to keep Donald Trump off presidential ballots have respective fortes
Questions from the nine justices can have little to do with the lawyer at the lectern.
Moot courts can ferociously test a lawyer
Such sessions are designed to expose the weaknesses in a case, devise solutions and refine its strong points. The tougher the moot – the adage goes – the smoother the actual argument.
During any given session at the real venue, a lawyer will be pummeled with questions from the nine justices on everything from tiny details in the trial record to broad scenarios regarding the consequences of a potential ruling. Some of these scenarios can be wildly outlandish, and the strongest advocates field the myriad while continually turning the court back to core legal points that reinforce their case.
“It’s an extraordinary lift for an advocate to master the historical and constitutional materials raised in this case,” said David Frederick, who has argued 59 times at the court and written a book on…
Read the full article here