Solicitor General Elena Kagan: What Color Was Her Pantsuit?
In her excellent interview with Chief Judge Alex Kozinski at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, Solicitor General Elena Kagan poked gentle fun at the controversy surrounding what she should wear while arguing before the Supreme Court, as the first female Solicitor General. She quipped: “That this is the big question of the Washington Supreme Court bar probably tells you something about the Supreme Court bar.”
And yet, despite making light of the issue, Solicitor General Kagan simultaneously built the suspense over what she would wear to One First Street. She deflected Judge Kozinski’s inquiries regarding her attire: “I’ve ostentatiously kept it a secret as to what I’m doing. If I told you, I’d have to shoot you.” (She was willing to admit, under intense questioning from Judge Kozinski, that she would not be arguing in Jimmy Choos.)
On Wednesday, Solicitor General Kagan ended the suspense, when she appeared before the Court to argue the Citizens United case. For recaps of the argument in this important and highly charged case, see Adam Liptak and Dahlia Lithwick.
We’ll focus on what really matters: What did Solicitor General Kagan wear on Wednesday? She eschewed the traditional morning coat, or some feminized version thereof, in favor of a pantsuit.
And that’s where the disagreement begins. Leading Supreme Court correspondents had different takes on its color. Tony Mauro of the Legal Times described it as “a businesslike black pantsuit with an open-collared white blouse.” But Dahlia Lithwick of Slate described it as “a tasteful blue pantsuit.”
So, what color was the Solicitrix General’s pantsuit? We reached out for comment to someone who ought to know: the SG herself.
We contacted Solicitor General Kagan and pointed out the split of authority concerning the color of her pantsuit. Was Tony Mauro correct, in describing it as a black pantsuit paired with a white blouse, or was Dahlia Lithwick correct, in describing it as a blue pantsuit?
To our great delight, the SG responded to our query:
[T]he truth is it was a black pantsuit with a light blue blouse.
So neither Mauro nor Lithwick was entirely right. Mauro got the color of the blouse wrong (perhaps that light blue was very light), but Lithwick thought the black pantsuit was blue (which, in her defense, can often happen with very dark shades of navy).
We’re disappointed in Lithwick and Mauro, who are usually extremely keen observers of everything that happens at the Court. Might these errors be an indication that the Supreme Court press corps needs better seating at One First Street?
We then asked Solicitor General Kagan an even more important question: Who were you wearing? Which designer was responsible for your “businesslike” yet “tasteful” garment? Alas, SG Kagan demurred: “I’m afraid I can’t give up the labels.” [FN1]
(Hmm…. Why did the Solicitor General invoke the Fifth? Would her response have been embarrassingly low-end, or embarrassingly high-end?)
Update: As commenters suggest (here and here), perhaps Solicitor General Kagan does not want to be seen as endorsing any product.
In any event, we thank the Solicitor General for indulging our inquiry on the pantsuit’s color. Isn’t it refreshing to have an SG argue in something other than the traditional morning coat? And isn’t it nice to have an advocate at One First Street with a sense of style?
P.S. If you’re really obsessed with the Solicitor General’s fashion choices — and if you’ve read this far, you probably are — then do check out this video, of the fabulous conversation at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference between Elena Kagan Chief Judge Alex Kozinski.
It’s a fascinating conversation, covering the substantive — e.g., how the SG’s office decides when to seek cert — and the fun. Find out, for example, who prevailed when Kozinski and Kagan played poker at Harvard Law School years ago. As for fashion, the topic comes up at the 23:30 mark and then the 26:00 mark of the video clip. Enjoy!
[FN1] Does anyone think we can find out SG Kagan’s designer of choice via a FOIA request? It could be argued that such an inquiry falls under the exemption for “personal information affecting an individual’s privacy.” But what reasonable expectation of privacy can one have in a garment worn in public? If our colleagues from Fashionista had been in the courtroom on Wednesday, we’re sure they could have figured out the designer on sight.
If anyone who saw the pantsuit in person has a guess as to its provenance — until there are cameras in the courtroom, we have to rely on eyewitnesses like you —
feel free to email us (subject line: “Elena Kagan’s pantsuit”). Thanks.
A Conversation with Solicitor General Elena Kagan [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]
Unprecedented: Watching the Supreme Court make its campaign finance jurisprudence disappear [Slate]
Supreme Court Majority Critical of Campaign Law Precedents [The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times]
Earlier: At the Ninth Circuit Conference: Elena Kagan Likes Sensible Shoes
(41) Comments
Comments
Latham NY laid off more than half the first year class only four months after they started.
Latham LA laid off a third of the first year class only four months after they started.
Latham DC laid off 25% of the first year class only 4 months after they started.
These cuts were unnecessary. The fact that the partners voted for them shows the firm is run by cut throat assholes who don't care about anyone's career.
After getting to the end of this article, I realized that it was all in service of a Fahonista plug. For shame, Lat, for shame!
nonstory?
Not quite sure which side of the hilarious/creepy line this post falls on. It was pretty clearly in hilarious territory until the footnote...
though this is a sham article, I'll comment.
I think pant-suits should be considered biz formal. The fact they are still considered "biz caz" is honestly a little offending. Luckily nowadays most girls don't get chastised for wearing a pant suit, but if you read most recommended attire notices, they still have it as not being biz formal.
Maybe stunts like this will change that...
I find it hard to believe that this woman was a finalist in the Law Dean Hotties contest.
Is Lat the gay one?
Really, Lat? Really?
I am a 9/11 TTTruther. I believe that MysTTTal ate the WTC.
she should have worn a bag on her head.
and judging by the quality of her argument, duct tape on her mouth.
Lat's obsessed with Kagan's boyish charms
Who really gives a shit what she wore. As long as she did a good job, that's all that really counts. I haven't worn a suit or tie to work in 30 years, although I dust one off when I go to court.
Latham is the most cut throat sweatshop. A Latham partner would violently Latham his own mother to make a nickel.
Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START!
I want the last 2 minutes of my life back.
Snore. Chrometa says I wasted 1 minute 33 seconds reading this. Back to work. Its Friday!
Solicitor General Rick Moranis
5,
While I don't see it as business casual, other attire is more formal. IMO.
Lat, you just failed as a human being. Too much man batter in your ass, I guess.
This is totally racist, but I read SG Kagan's response in the voice of Billie Jean King
I heard it was by Dickies.
re #1 - Those Latham 1st years must have terrible to have been laid off so quickly. Best to stop reminding everyone - you are devaluing your brand.
I know a lot of people are kind of cutting Kagan a break because this was her first SC oral argument - but she got her ass absolutely kicked in there.
I honestly felt bad for her.
She probably didn't mention the labels because that goes awry of some sort of ethics rules against endorsing a commercial brand which might appear before the court soon.
It should be of note:
An employee may not use his public office for his own private gain or for that of persons or organizations with which he is associated personally. An employee's position or title should not be used to coerce; to endorse any product, service or enterprise; or to give the appearance of governmental sanction. An employee may use his official title and stationery only in response to a request for a reference or recommendation for someone he has dealt with in Federal employment or someone he is recommending for Federal employment.
5 C.F.R. ยง 2635.702 (see Subpart G - Misuse of Position; Use of Public Office for Private Gain)
So many haters! If you don't like it, don't read it!
This kind of thing is exactly why I read ATL. It's fun. It's well written. It's behind the scenes. It's about a hot legal personality. It got a response from the SG herself (how many other blogs would the SG condescend to comment to? About anything?).
This is what ATL was like before Mystal, and before I stopped reading anything below the headlines. I want my old ATL back!!!!!!!!!
Highly disrespectful to the Court to wear the pants suit. I realize she is a leftist, but show some decorum.
27 - you lie!
WHO THE FUCK CARES?
this is less interesting or significant than even those awful breadline articles
Lady looks like a dude.
What 26 said.
1. Thank you to the Solicitor General for wearing a pantsuit. Perhaps now the Virginia Bar will rethink its policy of requiring women to wear a skirt suit when sitting for the bar exam? And perhaps we can finally put to rest the rumor that women who don't wear a skirt suit to interview at white shoe NYC law firms are putting themselves at a disadvantage?
2. Perhaps she didn't know the designer of her duds. I mean, *I* would, because I'm shallow like that. But perhaps the Solicitor General is choosing to focus her attention on the more important and weighty legal matters in front of her and just grabbed a suit off the rack that she felt good in.
A pant suit is, roughly, co-equal to a men's suit.
The morning coat is clearly a notch of formality above the men's suit. It's the daytime equivalent of white tie and tails.
She's just ratcheded down the formality level in the court. The next male SG will now be tempted to wear a regular suit from JosABanks and look like a schmo instead of like he's representing the most powerful country in the world in the most formal of settings.
I don't think it violates decorum to wear a pantsuit, but a skirtsuit would probably have been better. Chief Justice Rehnquist used to admonish male attorneys who wore button-collared shirts, and properly so!
I was on a deal with a corporate associate at Fried Frank that looks just like her. I think his name was Mark.
Comment from a sitting Solicitor General - nice work, ATL / Lat.
The people here talking about what she looks like other than her clothing choices are hard to believe - until you've achieved 1/10 of what she has, STFU.
That said, bitches should wear skirts in court and she was clearly getting a little uppity here.
Yes 1, we all know Latham sucks donkey balls and bases their business model on big layoffs in every downturn. You don't need to post it every day - perhaps just once a week in a thread that actually gets some attention?
Next.
What has come of society when our president decided to look past the traditional Supreme Court bar, and appoint a token Solicitrix General? Maybe after her short stint, she can finally tap into NYC biglaw and start making my coffee at Latham.
Latham Sr. Associate (good office, nice view, getting a bonus)
elena kagan should be voted as "super hottie of the sg's office".