High Court Yields to High Holy Days

It will not be business as usual for the Supreme Court when the first Monday in October arrives this year on Oct. 6.

As he does each fall, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist will appear in the courtroom, flanked by other members of the court, to announce the conclusion of the court's previous term and the commencement of its new one -- in this case, October Term 2003. He will note the publication of various court orders and welcome newly inducted members of the Supreme Court Bar.

But then the court will adjourn without hearing oral arguments -- because this year the first Monday in October happens to coincide with the most sacred day in the Jewish calendar, Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.

Earlier this year, the court announced that the justices had agreed among themselves to hold only a non-argument session on Oct. 6 "so that Yom Kippur may be observed." The first oral argument of the term, in the case of Frew v. Hawkins, No. 02-628, will occur on Tuesday, Oct. 7.

Court officials said this is the first time the court has ever explicitly adjusted its calendar to take account of the Jewish High Holy Days, which occur each year in the fall and include not only Yom Kippur but also Rosh Hashanah, a two-day new year's observance.

This year's scheduling change was understood to be in deference to the court's two Jewish members, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, neither of whom plans to attend court Oct. 6, court officials said.

"I think it is a very admirable and appropriate recognition of the religious sensitivities of members of the court," said Nathan Lewin, a Washington lawyer who practices before the court and is honorary president of the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists.

Lewin noted that the court has, in past years, offered to change the argument dates of his cases when he alerted officials of possible conflicts with Jewish holidays.

The last time a scheduled oral argument conflicted with the High Holy Days, Oct. 4, 1995, the court announced a last-minute schedule change, scrapping arguments in favor of a non-argument session from which not only Ginsburg and Breyer but also Rehnquist, who was scheduled for surgery that day, were absent.

But the court never offered a public explanation for that calendar alteration.

Though widely regarded as a manifestation of hoary Supreme Court tradition, the annual first Monday kickoff is actually a relatively recent practice. Congress established the opening date by law in 1916.

Going deeper into history, the Judiciary Act of 1789 mandated that the court hold two sessions each year, one beginning on the first Monday in February and a second beginning the first Monday in August. This was apparently to let the justices travel the country hearing cases -- "riding circuit" as it was known -- during the temperate spring and fall, according to the definitive reference book on such matters, "Supreme Court Practice," published by the Bureau of National Affairs.

Congress gradually adjusted the justices' calendar during the 19th century, reducing the number of sessions to one and changing the opening day to the second Monday in January, the first Monday in December and, in 1911, to the second Monday in October, before finally settling on today's arrangement.

Nor has it always been customary for the court to hear oral arguments on the first Monday in October. The law actually does not require the court to do anything in particular to mark the opening of its term.

Thus, it was not until the first Monday of October 1975 that the court even heard oral arguments. From October 1917 until then, it had used the first Monday and the first week of the term for its "long conference" -- an extended, closed-door session in which the justices dispose of matters that have accumulated during their long summer recess, according to court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg.

The "long conference" now takes place during the last week before the first Monday in October.

And, though unusual in modern court history, the upcoming Sept. 8 four-hour argument session on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law is neither a special term nor a part of the new fall term. Rather, it is the last public meeting of the court for October Term 2002, which is formally still in progress.