If you’re going to argue before the Supreme Court, you must be a lawyer. It wasn’t always that way, but this Monday the Supreme Court updated their 80-page rulebook, changing their longstanding practice into an explicit rule. The new rule, 28.8, solidifies a “long-standing practice of the court.”

But who would want to argue before supreme justices without knowing their way around the law? Apparently plenty have tried over the years, including a magazine publisher, entrepreneur, and paralegal-in-training; but for actual people who were allowed to, the last was Samuel H. Sloan in 1978 who represented himself in a stock trading suit, and decided no lawyer could win his case.

“It wasn’t on an ego thing or anything like that,” he said. “I wanted to win the case. I was convinced I couldn’t win the case in any other way but to argue my own case.” And win he did, 9-0.

Larry Flynt, the notorious publisher of Hustler magazine, also wanted to represent himself, but was appointed Shapiro to cover his case. He himself was led out of the court after yelling obscenities.



So why are the supreme justices being elitist? After all, why necessitate a JD to even speak to the likes of them? Maybe they want to hear lawyer talk, such as cases and scenarios similar to the points at hand.

There was once a time an honest principled man could speak before the supreme justices and make his case heard. Such a man can still speak before them, now he just has to have a JD.