{"id":82145,"date":"2026-09-18T09:02:26","date_gmt":"2026-09-18T13:02:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/?p=82145"},"modified":"2026-09-18T09:02:26","modified_gmt":"2026-09-18T13:02:26","slug":"supreme-court-summit-durbin-issa-82145","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/supreme-court-summit-durbin-issa-82145\/","title":{"rendered":"Durbin and Issa Reveal Differing Views on Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

The annual SCOTUSblog<\/a> Summit, held Wednesday at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Center, brought together former solicitors general, members of Congress, and top corporate lawyers to dissect the Supreme Court’s current state, its institutional pressures, and the political dynamics shaping its future. The event delivered a rare, candid exchange between Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)\u2014two lawmakers who hold starkly different visions for the Court’s structure, the role of the filibuster, and the legitimacy of the Court’s emergency docket. Their conversation, alongside insights from former Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and a panel of chief legal officers, underscored how deeply partisan divisions have seeped into every facet of the judicial system, and how those divisions complicate even the most seemingly procedural debates.<\/p>\n

From Journalism to the Supreme Court: Elizabeth Prelogar\u2019s Unlikely Path<\/h2>\n

The summit\u2019s opening session featured Elizabeth Prelogar, who served as solicitor general under President Biden and now leads Cooley\u2019s Supreme Court and appellate practice group. In a fireside chat with Zachary Shemtob, the executive editor of SCOTUSblog, Prelogar revealed that as an undergraduate at Emory University, she \u201cthought [she] was going to be a journalist, and that going to law school would be a way to get a foundation to write about the law.\u201d That detour into law school eventually led her to clerk for not one but two Supreme Court justices\u2014Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. Prelogar described the experiences as profoundly different. Ginsburg, who had already served on the bench for several decades, \u201creally focused on the facts of cases\u201d and viewed cases \u201cthrough the prism of being about real people with real problems.\u201d In contrast, Kagan was a brand-new justice who had never served as a judge, so the clerkship involved helping \u201cbuild her chambers and her policies from scratch\u201d\u2014from deciding whether to use bench memos to setting the dress code. Prelogar credited Kagan\u2019s collaborative preparation for oral arguments, which involved gathering all clerks \u201cto talk through every aspect of the cases, and ideally to debate the cases,\u201d as providing \u201csome of my early training\u201d for her future role as a litigator.<\/p>\n

When asked about her own preparation for oral argument, Prelogar said her system has \u201cevolved over time,\u201d especially after she became solicitor general with its \u201crelentless schedule.\u201d She became \u201cruthlessly efficient\u201d and focused on compiling a list of as many as 250 potential questions for which she formulated answers. Shemtob asked whether arguing 36 cases over 12 years becomes less nerve-wracking. Prelogar replied that it definitely gets easier\u2014she has \u201clocked in on what process I need to feel prepared\u201d\u2014but added that \u201cit\u2019s not like you\u2019re ever just cruising and you\u2019re completely relaxed.\u201d<\/p>\n

The case she identified as especially meaningful was United States v. Rahim<\/em>, in which the justices upheld a federal law barring people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. Prelogar stressed that Congress passed the law because it recognized that when such a person \u201chas access to a firearm, it can often take abuse and turn it into homicide.\u201d She noted that litigating Second Amendment issues in the Supreme Court is difficult, and the solicitor general\u2019s office \u201creally had to think strategically\u201d about which case to bring to the Court on this question. Prevailing in Rahimi<\/em>, she said, \u201cwas really both meaningful and gratifying from the standpoint of validating our legal strategy \u2026 but also because it was one of those cases where the stakes were not abstract at all.\u201d<\/p>\n

Durbin and Issa: A Rare Bipartisan Exchange on Court Structure and Independence<\/h2>\n

The third session of the summit featured CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig interviewing Senator Dick Durbin and Representative Darrell Issa about the relationship between Congress and the courts. The conversation was remarkably candid, exposing fundamental partisan disagreements on life tenure, the filibuster, and the Court\u2019s emergency docket.<\/p>\n

Term Limits and Life Tenure: A Divide over Judicial Independence<\/h3>\n

When Honig asked about term limits for judges and Congress\u2019s power to impose them, Issa urged caution. Even if members believe life tenure isn\u2019t working well, he said, they should not eliminate it without a good solution. \u201cLife tenure has generally worked well,\u201d Issa asserted, and \u201cI don\u2019t think that political pressure would lessen\u201d if it were eliminated. \u201cIf we want to maintain the maximum amount of independence for the Supreme Court,\u201d he said, life tenure \u201cis valuable.\u201d However, Issa added that district court judges who remain in their jobs too long can become a problem if they can no longer carry out all functions. \u201cWe have to have productive judges,\u201d he emphasized, and indicated that discussions with Chief Justice John Roberts on this issue have been unsatisfactory. \u201cGenerally,\u201d he said, \u201cyou get pretty hard pushback\u201d from Roberts.<\/p>\n

Durbin\u2019s response was more pragmatic. When asked about his views on life tenure, he quipped, \u201cit dependes on the judge.\u201d The remark drew laughter, but it also signaled a willingness to consider individual circumstances rather than a blanket principle.<\/p>\n

The Filibuster\u2019s Demise: How It Transformed Supreme Court Confirmations<\/h3>\n

Honig then turned to the elimination of the filibuster for judicial nominees. Senator Harry Reid ended the filibuster for lower federal court nominees in November 2013; Senate Republicans extended that to Supreme Court nominees in April 2017. Honig asked whether that was a mistake.<\/p>\n

Durbin emphasized that Republicans, under Mitch McConnnell, had long blocked Democrats from filling vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. \u201cVacancies just sat there\u201d until Reid eliminated the filibuster in 2013. But Durbin acknowledged that the end of the filibuster \u201cchanged the whole conversation about\u201d the Supreme court, making it much more partisan. \u201cWe would have a much different category of justices,\u201d he suggested, if senators needed 60 votes to end a filibuster and move forward with nominations.<\/p>\n

Issa was not a fan of the filibuster. He stressed that the \u201cSenate should have to make an up or down vote within a period of time\u201d to ensure that the \u201cgood nominees of the president\u201d are not \u201cunreasonably delayed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Honig then asked a pointed question: If Democrats were to take control of the Senate in November 2026 and there were a vacancy on the Supreme Court, should the Senate give a qualified candidate nominated by President Donald Trump a vote?<\/p>\n

Durbin, who is not running for reelection in 2026, told Honig that the \u201conly senator who has ever changed the tenure and composition of the\u201d Supreme Court \u201cis Senator McConnell.\u201d He referenced McConnell\u2019s refusal after Justice Antonin Scalia\u2019 s death in February 2016 to give a hearing or vote to Merrick Garland, on the ground that it was too close to the 2016 election. McConnnell later confirmed Amy Coney Barrett weeks before the 2020 election. Despite that, Durbin indicated he believed the Senate should vote on a Trump nominee. Issa agreed, saying there should be an up-or-down vote on any or all nominees of any president.<\/p>\n

Court Size and Emergency Docket: Two Competing Visions<\/h3>\n

Issa expressed opposition to House Speaker Mike Johnson\u2019s proposed constitutional amendment to cap the Supreme Court\u2019s size at nine. \u201cIf it isn\u2019t broke, don\u2019t fix it,\u201d he said. He added that regardless of the size, \u201cif every case has to be decided by all of them, what incremental value do you get by a larger number?\u201d Durbin seemed to view the question as purely hypothetical, noting that even if such an amendment could get 60 votes in the Senate, it would likely face a presidential veto that Congress would need to override. \u201cNot a realistic conversation in the current political make-up of Washington,\u201d he suggested.<\/p>\n

The two lawmakers also clashed over the widespread use of the Court\u2019s emergency docket and whether criticism of that docket is justified. Durbin said he \u201cabsolutely\u201d agreed with the criticism. \u201cIs it too much to ask,\u201d he said, \u201cthat the court identify where they stand and explain where they stand\u201d on important issues? Issa countered that if you keep asking the court to handle an \u201cinfinite number of things separate from their merits decisions,\u201d \u201cyou force them to use the tools\u201d they have created. \u201cAt the end of the day,\u201d he emphasized, \u201cthey\u2019re doing the best they can.\u201d<\/p>\n

Corporate Counsel Weigh In: Is the Roberts Court Pro-Business?<\/h2>\n

The afternoon concluded with a conversation between David Lat, author of the Original Jurisdiction Substack, and three chief legal officers: Brian Callanan of TD Bank US, Brett Gerry of The Boeing Company, and Jeffrey Taylor of ExxonMobil. The discussion\u2014while ostensibly about the Supreme Court\u2019s docket\u2014revealed how large corporations navigate the Court and assess its temperament.<\/p>\n

Taking Cases to the Supreme Court: A High Bar, But Not Insurmountable<\/h3>\n

Lat observed that the justices are issuing relatively few merits rulings these days and asked whether the Court should be taking more business or commercial cases. Taylor noted that ExxonMobil has been involved in several cases recently, including Suncor Energy v. County Commissioner$ of Boulder County<\/em>, the first case the Court will hear argument in October. \u201cIt would be unseemly or gluttonous for me to complain that the court isn\u2019t taking enough business cases,\u201d he said. \u201cWe can\u2019t complain about being mistreated.\u201d<\/p>\n

Gerry suggested that whether the Court takes enough business cases \u201cdepends on what you think of as a business case.\u201d Some cases may not appear to be \u201cbusiness cases\u201d but still affect business, although \u201cit doesn\u2019t feel like there has been as many significant cases in that category\u201d recently.<\/p>\n

When asked what factors ExxonMobile considers in deciding whether to seek Supreme Court review, Taylor quipped that as a young federal prosecutor he often believed the Ninth Circuit<\/a> \u201cscrewed up everything\u201d and that the government should appeal everything. But his thinking has changed: ExxonMobil seeks \u201cto be measured about what we\u2019re going to seek.\u201d The company asks whether the issue is \u201cexistential or merely an irritant.\u201d \u201cYou try to apply some quality control,\u201d he said, but also use outside lawyers with expertise in the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Gerry noted that at a similar panel last year, another general counsel<\/a> said the \u201cbar would have to be very high,\u201d but he indicated he was \u201cnot sure I agree.\u201d He acknowledged the bar is high, but if he believed the question was \u201cimportant enough\u201d and \u201cwe had the better side of the argument,\u201d then he \u201cwouldn\u2019t be reluctant to seek review.\u201d Callanan joked that \u201cCEOs don\u2019t get as excited about taking a case to the Supreme Court.\u201d For him, the important question was whether the issue is \u201ca recurring, substantial\u201d one.<\/p>\n

The Roberts Court: Pro-Business or Just Following the Law?<\/h3>\n

Lat asked whether the lawyers considered the Roberts court \u201cpro-\u201d or \u201canti-business.\u201d Gerry countered that it was neither. Instead, the Court is composed of \u201cnine justices who have well-developed, well-thought-through approaches to deciding cases\u201d that lead to a result regardless of who is on what side. Callanan pointed to the tariffs case (Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump<\/em>) as evidence of the difficulty in making such a determination. Whether it was a pro-business case depends on your vantage point: a lumber company benefiting from tariffs versus a toy store importing products would have entirely different views.<\/p>\n

Taylor acknowledged that \u201cif you\u2019re looking to make that argument that the court is pro-business, you can find it,\u201d but it\u2019s also easy to make the argument that the court is anti-business. \u201cAnd that tells me that they\u2019re calling it as best they can,\u201d he concluded.<\/p>\n

As the summit drew to a close, the collective message was one of deep institutional tension. The Court\u2019s legitimacy rests on perceptions of impartiality, but the political battles over its composition, its procedures, and the types of cases it takes are fought openly and increasingly without guardrails. The candidness of Durbin and Issa\u2014from their disagreement on the filibuster\u2019s legacy to their divergent views on the emergency docket\u2014revealed that even in the halls of Congress, there is no consensus on how the judiciary should operate. Meanwhile, corporate counsel suggested that despite the volatility, the Court continues to decide cases on their merits, even if those merits are viewed through sharply different lenses. Whether the Court can maintain that balance in an era of hyperpartisanship remains an open question\u2014one that the next election cycle may force into sharper focus.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The annual SCOTUSblog Summit, held Wednesday at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Center, brought together former solicitors general, members of Congress, and top corporate lawyers to dissect the Supreme Court’s current state, its institutional pressures, and the political dynamics shaping its future. The event delivered a rare, candid exchange between Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":82148,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/pub-4d4fc17555de4152be07eaf2a416a31e.r2.dev\/en\/ocie_1789736549561.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"Durbin and Issa Reveal Differing Views on Supreme Court","footnotes":""},"categories":[40657],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-82145","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-legal"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/pub-4d4fc17555de4152be07eaf2a416a31e.r2.dev\/en\/ocie_1789736549561.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"Durbin and Issa Reveal Differing Views on Supreme Court","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82145","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=82145"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82145\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":82147,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82145\/revisions\/82147"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/82148"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82145"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82145"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82145"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}