A still of the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol (Photo by Tyler Merbler, bit.ly/3FBQs9j; CC BY 2.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en)
Lawyers pleading their client’s cases are often tempted to argue narrowly, focusing the court’s attention on the unique facts that go in their favor and not on the broader implications of a ruling for their side. Judges, by contrast, generally challenge counsel to offer a workable rule that could apply not only to the case at hand but more broadly as well.
An interesting inversion of this pattern happened at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Wednesday, during oral argumentsThis article has been indexed from Lawfare
Read the original article: