Supreme Ambitions by David Lat Page A

to clarify the problems that the BIA had identified in Hamadani’s asylum application, Jeremy leaned over to me and whispered, “This guy’s good.”
    Judge Arthur Hollingsworth, an elderly conservative judge from Oklahoma who was sitting on the panel as a visiting judge, interjected: “These points you are now making, were these raised in your brief?”
    â€œYes, Your Honor. They appear under the second point of our argument section, starting at page 18.”
    â€œCounselor, you raised all these arguments in your excellent brief,” Judge Gottlieb said. “The board did a poor job of making a record in this case. Why should we accord any deference to the BIA given its sloppiness?”
    â€œWith all due respect to the board,” Lionel Soloway said, “we do not believe it is entitled to great deference. But even giving the board deference, its adverse credibility finding must be overturned for lack of support.”
    Loyola Larry entered the courtroom through the door near the front of the gallery, attracting stares from practically everyone except Soloway, who was focused on his argument. Larry ambled toward the back of the room, not at all self-conscious about his tardy entrance.
    As Soloway continued to score points, deftly fielding hostile questions from Judges Stinson and Hollingsworth while graciously accepting softballs from Judge Gottlieb, Jeremy bounced his leg up and down and smiled. Meanwhile, I stared down at the deep blue carpet, filled with growing anxiety.
    Had I made the wrong recommendation in my bench memo? I had tried my best, and I had acknowledged the case was close and difficult. If my recommendation was wrong, I hoped that the judges would ignore it.
    I was glad to be “only” a clerk and not a judge. I believed what I had told Pervez that morning: the judges would make the right decision.

11
    â€œGood morning, everyone,” Judge Stinson said, starting up the Monday morning meeting after the calendar week. “Are we ready to get back to work?”
    Even though the clerkship year essentially revolved around the eight or so oral argument calendars—preparing for the calendar, hearing the cases during the calendar, and writing up the opinions after the calendar—the calendar week itself was actually pleasant. We had done so much work in advance that there wasn’t that much to do during the argument week itself. In the morning, we’d watch oral argument, and in the afternoon, we’d draft memorandum dispositions—straightforward rulings, generally just a few pages, written for the specific parties and not binding precedent. We got to leave chambers before seven in the evening. But now that week was over.
    After the usual discussion of our weekends, we plunged into the docket and the status of our cases. When we got to Hamadani , the judge paused the discussion.
    â€œAudrey, congratulations,” she said. “The analysis of your bench memo carried the day. We got the vote of Judge Hollingsworth. Judge Gottlieb will dissent. Also, in case you missed it, the Los Angeles Times had an article yesterday about it. Looks like your first case is quite the drama.”
    â€œI did see the article, Judge. It was very sympathetic toward Hamadani.”
    â€œExcessively so, in my view. But that’s the media for you. They have a very unsophisticated understanding of the law. They think that whatever they want to happen, as a matter of personal opinion, just has to be the law. Hello, Los Angeles Times , that’s not quite how this all works!”
    We all laughed.
    â€œNow, we don’t let the media influence our decision making, which would be improper,” the judge continued. “But the public is watching this case, and Judge Gottlieb will write a strong dissent, so we need to write our opinion with great care.”
    â€œAbsolutely, Judge.”
    â€œOf course, all of our opinions are written with great