The Supreme Court of the United States is practicing a very disturbing form of systemic discrimination against pro se or unrepresented litigants that needs to be corrected. The court, charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the rules and laws of the country are fair and legal, forbids unrepresented litigants from participating in the oral argument process.
Rule 28(8) of the Supreme Court dictates that “oral arguments may be presented only by members of the Bar of this Court.” This is a blatantly discriminatory rule against unrepresented litigants who should have the same right to participate in the oral argument process as represented litigants do. I believe that this rule arbitrarily violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of “equal protection of the laws” to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The Supreme Court happily welcomes and accepts the required $300.00 filing fee from unrepresented litigants, and accordingly, it should be treating the unrepresented litigants with the same degree of respect that it affords represented litigants, but it doesn’t do so, and instead chooses to treat the unrepresented litigants as a cash cow — as a means to provide a cash flow into the court’s coffers, while at the same time disallowing the unrepresented litigants from the same processes afforded to the represented litigants, which violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
The phrase “Equal Justice Under Law” is engraved above the front entrance of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. Currently, it is not true. The court blatantly discriminates against a class of litigants who represent themselves, even while collecting their filing fees. This is a form of systemic discrimination based on class, and the Supreme Court of the United States should be the last governmental body to be involved in such systemic discrimination. The Supreme Court should either remove the engraving of “Equal Justice Under Law” from the front entrance of the Supreme Court building, or it should remove its discriminatory rule and allow pro se litigants to equally present oral arguments before the court.
The Supreme Court is obligated to follow the principles of the very laws of the land that it is obligated to enforce. In the case of Rule 28(8), it is failing to do so in the case of pro se litigants. This is not “Equal Justice Under Law.”
Brian Vukadinovich is a retired teacher in Indiana and the former executive director of the Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se’s. In March 2016, he represented himself in a federal civil rights jury trial and won a verdict against his former public school corporation employer for violating his due process rights when it terminated his employment. He is the author of the book Motion for Justice: I Rest My Case.
