Elizabeth Prelogar Argues SCOTUS Case Without Signing Briefs
Elizabeth Prelogar unexpectedly argued a Supreme Court case she had not briefed.
Why it matters: Rarely does an advocate appear at oral argument without having signed any briefs, highlighting unique procedural moves in high-profile appellate practice. This spotlights advocacy conventions and may have implications for how appellate teams structure their representation.
- Elizabeth Prelogar argued T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp. on April 20, 2026.
- Prelogar’s name did not appear on any of the briefs for the petitioner; Kannon Shanmugam was counsel of record.
- The case centers on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and jurisdiction between state and federal courts.
- Justices, including Samuel Alito, questioned Prelogar about arguments going beyond those raised in the petition.
Elizabeth Prelogar, a former U.S. Solicitor General and current partner at Cooley LLP, made an unusual Supreme Court appearance during oral arguments for T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation on April 20, 2026. Unusually, Prelogar had not signed any cert-stage or merit-stage briefs for the petitioner—those were handled entirely by Kannon Shanmugam of Paul Weiss, who was listed as counsel of record (Volokh Conspiracy).
- This marks Prelogar’s first SCOTUS argument since returning to private practice.
- The case challenges application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which typically limits federal court review of state court decisions.
- During argument, Justice Samuel Alito asked Prelogar, “Reading between the lines, I take your --your real position to be that Rooker-Feldman ought to be overruled... that’s not before us here, right?”
- Prelogar responded, “Our primary argument is that it’s not necessary to overrule it. It just shouldn’t be vastly expanded.”
- Lisa Blatt of Williams & Connolly represented the respondent, arguing in favor of upholding Rooker-Feldman’s limits (SCOTUSblog).
While high-profile advocates sometimes share responsibilities, it is rare for someone to argue without prior brief involvement, raising questions on procedural norms and strategic advocacy decisions. The case also spotlighted ongoing debates over the future of Rooker-Feldman and how robustly it should limit federal jurisdiction after a state court decision.
By the numbers:
- 2 — Number of Supreme Court cases that form the Rooker-Feldman doctrine: Rooker (1923) and Feldman (1983).
- 2026-04-20 — Date Prelogar unexpectedly appeared to argue the case.
Yes, but: The reasons Kannon Shanmugam ceded the argument or the client’s view are not public.