On Wednesday, we had the opportunity to visit the Supreme Court, and it is even more awesome in person than it looks in pictures! Not only did we get to walk inside of the Court building, but we got to sit within the Courtroom itself. The Courtroom is more intimate than I
realized, as the Justices and the Solicitor General really are not that far apart. I also got to sit in Mrs. Alito’s seat (which was pretty cool), as all of the Justices have seats reserved for their spouses and guests. What’s more, I did not know that, in order to practice before the Court, one
has to be a part of the Supreme Court Bar. I also learned that, though seating is limited, there do exist spots for members of the public to sit in on Court cases: if our class ever coordinates another D.C. trip, we should for sure plan it around an oral argument day! That’s officially a new item on my bucket list.

One of my favorite parts of the Supreme Court tour, however, was getting to see all of the different Justices’ portraits. I got some pictures of my favorite Justices (though I unfortunately couldn’t find Justice Hugo Black’s portrait!), but I did get a picture with Justice Scalia, my
all-time favorite. My appreciation for Justice Black stems from my appreciation of our First Amendment liberties, specifically our right to free speech, and my appreciation of Justice Scalia stems from his originalist (and conservative) jurisprudence. Specifically, I appreciate his opinions on cases centered around social issues (many of which I know are “hot takes,” which makes me like him even more!). While nevertheless a controversial figure, Justice Scalia was not afraid to be unpopular, nor did he concern himself with making his beliefs palatable. And even in dissent, he maintained his positions with a passion. He was unapologetically “Nino,” something that I really do respect and admire. As he relates to my research question, though, Justice Scalia has an interesting history with the Free Exercise Clause: interesting both because of his religious background and the way in which his jurisprudential approach towards the clause represented such a break in Free Exercise precedent, Justice Scalia’s use of the General Applicability test defines one stream of Free Exercise doctrine (re: Oregon v. Smith). This stands in sharp contrast to the other line of doctrine, that of the Strict Scrutiny test (re: Justice Brennan’s Sherbert v. Verner). The latter holds legislation restricting religious exercise up to a higher standard of constitutionality than does the former.

While we were in the Library of Congress, I actually had the opportunity to read Free Exercise cases, two of which were the aforementioned Oregon v. Smith and Sherbert v. Verner. I
was able to compare Scalia’s Smith to Scalia’s Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, as he opined differently on similar questions, and though his papers are not yet released, I was able to get an idea of Scalia’s thoughts through the lens of Justice Blackmun, who kept not just his own records but those of the other Justices with whom he served. I do look forward to reading Justice Scalia’s papers when they are released, as his–and the other Justices’–papers will make the Free Exercise
picture even fuller. The current Roberts Court has actually been moving towards a more accommodationist approach to the Free Exercise Clause that utilizes the Strict Scrutiny, as opposed to the General Applicability, test. This is an area in which Justice Scalia differed in some respects from the majority of the Roberts Court. Additionally, as I noted earlier, Justice Scalia was known for his appreciation of originalism, a theory of jurisprudence which favors history and intent in consideration of what the Constitution means. While Scalia admits originalism is not a perfectly objective approach towards Constitutional interpretation, he believes it is the most objective in comparison to other approaches that, in Scalia’s opinion, actually allow more room for Justices to insert their own opinions and biases into decision-making. I’m right with Justice Scalia on this one, as I believe that Justice Brennan’s jurisprudence that revolves around human dignity, and Justice Souter’s jurisprudence that revolves around society’s ever-changing values, are far too spongy for the should-be objective judiciary.

To end this blog post on a lighter–and more fun!–note, we concluded our tour of the Supreme Court with a stop by the Court’s cafeteria and the Court’s gift shop. I love a good cafeteria, but I must admit I love a good gift shop even more. I stocked up on gavel pencils to bring home to friends and family, and I got a gavel pen for myself, too. They are adorable! I can now cross the Supreme Court off of my bucket list, and I’m still in awe that I got to step inside of and sit within the same room that the current Justices sit in, the room from which cases are decided and American constitutionalism is defined. Visiting the Court, combined with getting to rifle through the papers of the Justices, made me feel as though I was stepping into our nation’s history, a first-time feeling I was so privileged to have experienced in D.C.