The Society is grateful to the historians, political scientists, lawyers, art historians, librarians, judges, students and independent scholars who choose the Journal as the forum to publish their research. We are also grateful to the distinguished members of our Board of Editors who work hard to seek out and develop new articles that allow readers to learn more about the Supreme Court and how it has developed as an institution. For example, the Journal often publishes articles that draw on extensive research in the justices’ papers to reexamine an important case and describe the formulation of the Court’s decision as a narrative story. The Journal has also broken a few scoops about the development of institutional norms—when the justices switched to wearing black robes, when the practice of recusals began, how the modern clerkship started, how the shape of the bench was redesigned, why the first Black page was hired, to name a few.
Breaking History: Trailblazing Women in the Office of the Solicitor General
“First Wave,” the inaugural episode of the series, features Beth S. Brinkmann interviewing Sarah Sun Beale, Elinor Stillman, Barbara Etkind, Carolyn F. Corwin and Kathryn A. Oberly, who served at the OSG in the 1970s and 80s.
Presidents in the Courtroom
By Clare Cushman, Resident Historian, Supreme Court Historical Society
April 1, 2026
President Donald J. Trump’s arrival at the Supreme Court today marks the first time a sitting president has attended oral argument. President Trump has appeared in the Courtroom of the nation’s highest court twice: attending the formal investiture ceremonies of Associate Justices Neil M. Gorsuch (June 17, 2017) and Brett M. Kavanaugh (November 8, 2018). He was accompanied by First Lady Melania Trump. As is modern practice for these symbolic rituals, neither ceremony was scheduled on days when the Court was in session so the president did not hear cases being argued. Historically, presidents did attend swearings-in on Court days but departed before the Chief Justice opened the judicial proceedings.
However, President Richard Nixon did witness important Court business on June 23, 1969, when he made a visit to the Supreme Court to watch proudly the swearing-in of his new appointee, Warren Burger, and to read a tribute to Earl Warren, who was retiring as Chief Justice. Nixon arrived by limo at 10 am and heard the Justices announce the last three decisions of the Term. He sat quietly in the back of the Courtroom and listened to decisions being handed down until it was time for him to take the podium. Nixon made his remarks as a member of the Supreme Court Bar, having argued a case before the Court in 1966. He spoke for seven minutes, praising Chief Justice Warren and then philosophizing on the theme of continuity and change. Nixon chose to wear the traditional cutaways worn by government attorneys when they argue cases.
Presidents have also appeared in the Courtroom to argue cases. But all did so as lawyers before or after serving in the White House.
- John Quincy Adams argued four cases before becoming president. He also argued on behalf of the African mutineers and against the enslavers in United States v. The Amistad after his presidency (his lone appointee to the Supreme Court had died). His arguments on February 24, 1841 and March 1, 1841, lasted about 7 hours.
- James K. Polk argued one case before his presidency, a Tennessee land-title case William v. Norris. He argued on January 11 and 12, 1827.
- Abraham Lincoln argued one case before his presidency, a minor land-title case William Lewis v. Thomas Lewis (1849). Lincoln was serving in the House of Representatives. He lost; Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote the Court’s opinion.
- James A. Garfield argued thirteen cases before his presidency. Most notable was Ex parte Milligan (1866), in which he was one of several counsel who argued successfully that it was unconstitutional for civilians to be tried in military courts.
- Grover Cleveland argued one case between his first and second term as president. Cleveland’s two appointees, Chief Justice Melville Fuller and Associate Justice Lucius Q.C. Lamar, ruled against his client in Peake v. New Orleans (1891).
- Benjamin Harrison, a prominent lawyer, argued 7 cases before his presidency and 6 after. Three of his four Supreme Court appointees ruled on these cases.
- William H. Taft argued 39 cases before he became president and while he was serving as Solicitor General from 1890-1892.
- Richard M. Nixon argued Time Inc. v. Hill on April 27, 1966, when he was in private practice before his presidency. At the Court’s request, he reargued it on October 18. At issue was freedom of press v. invasion of a family’s privacy. Nixon represented the Hill family, but Time Inc. won the case.
Sources include:
Clare Cushman, “Two Chiefs, a President, a Buried Hatchet, and Civility,” July 14, 2022.
SCOTUS Scoops: Two Chiefs, A President, A Buried Hatchet, and Civility | SCHS
Allen Sharp, “Presidents as Supreme Court Advocates: Before and after the White House,” Journal of Supreme Court History, vol. 28 no 2 (2003).
Breaking History: Pranking the Court: Ted White on the 1949 Phony Cert Petition Hoax
Pranking the Court: Ted White reveals how the Office of the Solicitor General played a joke on the Justices by filing a phony cert petition challenging an absurd DC noise ordinance. He solves the mystery of who was behind the 1949 hoax, which would have jeopardized the right of attorneys to speak loudly in the Courtroom and lunchgoers to stand in line in the cafeteria.
Breaking History: From Ireland to the Highest Court: Celebrating The Emerald Bench A St. Patrick’s Day Discussion
This St. Patrick’s Day program explores the Irish American legacy at the Supreme Court of the United States.
Sean Meehan, author of The Emerald Bench, discusses his book, which profiles the twenty-five Irish Americans who have served as Supreme Court justices from 1790 to the present. Through family histories, archival images, and historical context, the book examines how Irish heritage shapes their paths to the Court and influences their judicial philosophies.
Meehan is joined by David O’Rourke, Justice and Home Affairs Counsellor at the Embassy of Ireland, for a timely conversation on Irish identity, immigration, and the enduring impact of Irish Americans on American law.
In this episode, Ross Davies interviews Judge Mathias W. Delort about the role he played as a young lawyer in a 1992 case involving “third” party elections in Chicago. Delort’s first-hand account draws on the papers of Justice John Paul Stevens, who was serving as Circuit Justice and pushed to right a hometown injustice. “Behind the Scenes of Norman v. Reed with Justice Stevens: How a Local Chicago Political Battle Resulted in an Unlikely (and Rare) Supreme Court Case on the Rights of New Political Parties” will appear in Journal of Supreme Court History (50.3).
Clare Cushman discusses two historical scoops published in the July issue of the Journal of Supreme Court History (50.2). Allen Derr’s riveting memoir of arguing the landmark Reed v. Reed (1971) case and how a Boise, Idaho attorney with a small practice prevailed in the Court’s first decision holding a law unconstitutional on the basis of sex. Catherine Ladnier’s extraordinary 1970 interviews of five Supreme Court Justices-William O. Douglas, Hugo L. Black, Tom C. Clark, John M. Harlan and Potter Stewart- about their thoughts on Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which they had decided three years earlier.
In this episode, Helen J. Knowles-Gardner explains how the American Jewish Congress helped the NAACP overcome Alabama’s procedural roadblocks in the landmark freedom of association case NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958). She also reveals the story behind the Supreme Court justices’ denial of the AJC’s amicus brief and puts it in context of the Court’s rare historical denials of amicus brief submissions. “Without a Little Help from Your Friends: The Supreme Court’s Rejection of the American Jewish Congress Amicus Brief in NAACP v. Alabama ex rel Patterson (1958)” appears in Journal of Supreme Court History 50.1.
In this episode, Jonathan Lurie, distinguished Taft biographer, reviewed Robert C. Post’s new contribution to the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History in the Journal of Supreme Court History 50.1. Here he discusses Post’s work on the Taft Court with Ross E. Davies.
In this episode, Ross E. Davies covers the patchwork state of appellate court reporting in the 19th century and the fascinating role played by Justice Samuel M. Blatchford and his son in accomplishing this crucial work. Clare Cushman interviews Davies on his recent article “With a Little Help, But Not Quite Enough, From Nine Friends: The Appointment and Disappointment of the Official Reporter of Decisions for the U.S. Courts of Appeals” in the Journal of Supreme Court History 50.1.
In this episode of the Breaking History series, Helen J. Knowles-Gardner delves into her groundbreaking article, “‘The ct is disposed to consider the merits… Wow!'” Anthony Lewis Takes Us Inside the Oral Argument in NAACP v. Alabama ex. rel. Flowers (1964),” featured in the Journal of Supreme Court History (Vol. 49, No. 3). Join Editor Ross E. Davies as they explore the pivotal 1964 Supreme Court case, Lewis’s influence, and the broader implications for civil rights law.
Notes:
Gabriel Valle’s article appeared in 48.1 (2023) of the Journal of Supreme Court History which is available for purchase.
Rachel A. Shelden’s article “Anatomy of a Presidential Campaign from the Supreme Court Bench: John McLean, Levi Woodbury, and the Election of 1848,” appeared in 47.3
Christopher Brook’s article “Senator Charles Sumner and the Admission of John S. Rock to the Supreme Court Bar” will appear in vol. 48.2, which will be published in July.
Feldman’s article ““So Forcibly Presented by His Counsel, Who Are of His Race”: Cornelius Jones, Forgotten Black Supreme Court Advocate and Fighter for Civil Rights in the Plessy Era” which appeared in 47.2.
Browning’s article “A Forgotten First: Everett J. Waring, First Black Supreme Court Advocate and the Case of Jones v. United States” appeared in 47.1.