Prof. Laura E. Little, Temple Law School (Philadelphia, PA, USA); Miles H. Satlof, Student, Temple Law School (Philadelphia, PA, USA)
For the past several years, ForHum has featured a roundup of funny interchanges during oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States. The episodes featured were generally not knee-slapping by anyone’s tastes, but were at least smile-inspiring for most. This is not surprising: whatever humor is present in the serious volleying during oral argument is situational—i.e., you had to be present to fully appreciate what is funny. This year’s quips, however, fall short of earlier years by almost anyone’s measure of comedy.
What accounts for this sorry showing? One thought is the gravity of decisions facing the Court. Whatever one thinks of President Donald J. Trump, he stands as gift that keeps on giving when it comes to constitutional issues. The 2025-2026 term was littered with landmark rulings: from the President’s desire to reduce the Constitution’s provision for birthright citizenship to his attempts to seize control of the election process, and onto his insistence on a unilateral right to remove congressionally approved agency members. These issues strike at the core of democracy and called for sober discussion and consideration. Yet the Court transcripts nonetheless contain notations documenting laughter in the courtroom–laughter suggesting that participants and observers needed either to find the “funny” in what was going on or to fall apart. In the following, see if you agree that these efforts to laugh were, at best, strained.
I know what’s relevant
The Solicitor General represents the United States government is all cases before the Supreme Court. The Trump-appointed Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, has had a busy term. One of the biggest cases he argued was Trump v. Barbara— the birthright citizenship case. The court ultimately upheld birthright citizenship and rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to narrow the status, but not before several comments poking fun at the Solicitor General.
One of these remarks came after a justice questioned the wisdom of Sauer’s proposed new test of U.S. citizenship. Sauer began responding only to be cut off by Justice Gorsuch:
Sauer: I would first cite Wong Kim Ark on that point because Wong Kim Ark says you’re—
Gorsuch: Well, I’m not sure how much you want to rely on Wong Kim Ark
For context, the 1898 decision in Wong Kim Ark held that the 14th amendment guaranteed that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen regardless of their parent’s nationality or immigration status. Gorsuch, in his remark, was highlighting the absurdity of Sauer favorably citing this keybirthright citizenship precedent in his effort for the Court to overrule the case and change the scope of birthright citizenship.
The justices didn’t stop clowning with Sauer there. More occurred when Sauer brought up Birth Tourism companies, which help people travel to the United States to give birth to an American Citizen. When asked about the legal relevance of birth tourism, Sauer explained that the framers of the 14th amendment would not have approved of the practice. When the Chief Justice observed that birth tourism was not a problem in the 19th century, Sauer responded: “We’re in a new world now… where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.” To this, the Chief Justice quipped: “Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.” Laughter erupted throughout the Court.
Sorry, it’s my first day
Experienced lawyers like Sauer were not the only advocates targeted by the bench’s humor. This term featured some cringey moments from first-time advocates like Alan Beck and Harry Graver. See whether you agree that rookie flubs were indeed funny.
For instance, in Wolford v. Lopez, the term’s gun rights battle, first-time advocate Alan Beck forgot the federal government was on his side. Justice Barrett had asked whether Beck had agreed with everything in the government’s brief. When Beck said that he did not, Barrett clarified that she meant the United States Government. Eventually, after Barrett told Beck that she was not asking him to throw away his case, Beck fully endorsed the United States brief. The interaction played out as follows:
Justice Barrett: Do you agree with everything in the government’s brief?
Mr. Beck: No, I do not, Your Honor.
Justice Barrett: The United States Government, yeah.
Mr. Beck: Yes. Yes, Your Honor.
Justice Barrett: Okay.
Justice Barrett: The government that’s on your same side.
Mr. Beck: Yes, I understand
Mr. Beck: I agree with every —
Justice Barrett: I’m not asking you to throw your case away.
Mr. Beck: I fully endorse the United States’ brief, Your Honor
Another novice advocate, U.S. Department of Justice attorney Harry Graver, had a memorable first argument in an important capital punishment case. After a long discussion, Justice Gorsuch realized Graver had not answered some questions and helpful gave him opportunity to circle back so as to fully present his case:
Justice Gorsuch: A few questions there where I don’t think you got to finish your answer. Here’s your shot.
Mr. Graver: I would be pretending if I remember what any of those questions were.
I have a backup plan
Trump v. Cook was another of the term’s heavy hitters, finding that the United States Federal Reserve Board can remain independent of the President’s unfettered discretion to remove a member. Despite his success, a highly experienced oral advocate and, attorney for the respondent, Paul Clement, had to reach deep into his toolbox. Clement told the Court that he had a backup argument, but the justices wanted his “front-line argument” first. Clement then tried to answer some hypotheticals about Hitler and the KKK. The Justices were not charmed, leading to this interaction:
Justice Alito: Well, yeah, because your position leads to —
Mr. Clement: I’m going to stick with my position.
Justice Alito: Well, you’re — all right.
Mr. Clement: Of course, I’m going to stick with my position… I mean, for better or for worse, whatever you think of Humphrey’s Executor, we’ve had 90 years of
Justice Gorsuch: Mr. Clement, what’s your backup argument?
After explaining his backup argument, Justice Gorsuch was still skeptical and asked: “Do you have a backup to the backup?” Surprisingly, Clement did have a backup to his backup. Titters could be heard in the courtroom.
Why Take My Peloton When You Can Have My House
The Court heard Pung v. Isabella County after the Pung family home was foreclosed on and sold for $76,008 despite being valued at $194,400. This all stemmed from a $2,242 unpaid tax dispute. The Pung’s sued and their attorney, Phillip Ellison, argued that, given the meager unpaid taxes, the government should have seized personal property before the house. When Justice Alito asked what type of personal property the government ought to seize, a noteworthy back and forth unfolded:
Mr. Ellison: Well, in this case, with a tax debt of about 2200 bucks, it could have been the Peloton bike that was in the house.
Justice Alito: You think a Peloton bike today is worth $2,000?
Mr. Ellison: Well —
Justice Alito: If you go on Facebook Marketplace and you try to sell a Peloton bike today for $2,000, I don’t think you’re going to be very successful.
Alito was spot on with this one… Peloton bikes on Facebook Marketplace generally range from $150-700.
*** Thus is a representative sampling of the “hilarity” that occurred this last term in the august U.S. Supreme Court courtroom —with all its mahogany, marble, and red velvet curtains. Are you laughing yet?