Supreme Court history was made this week when the justices heard arguments in Venezuela v. Helmerich and, for the first time ever, more women participated than men.
Catherine Stetson of Hogan Lovells and Catherine Carroll of WilmerHale represented the parties in the dispute, while Elaine Goldberg argued for the United States as amicus curiae. Counting Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, that meant the argument featured six women to only five men.
Despite the historical achievement, Empirical SCOTUS reminds us that this argument remains an outlier.
AI Is Reshaping Legal Practice—But Tools Aren’t The Real Differentiator.
Explore the mindset, cultural shifts, and training strategies that define the AI‑savvy lawyer, revealing why human judgment, standardized competence, and integrated learning—not technology alone—will shape the future of the profession.
Outside of this case, however, the gender balance was more standard for the Supreme Court where ten of the other eleven attorneys that argued this week were men (the other woman to argue this week was Kathleen Sullivan in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States, ex rel. Rigsby).
Still, it’s a sign of things to come.
The Supreme Court’s Gender Balance [Empirical SCOTUS]
Managing Partners are Navigating the AI Inflection Point.
New executive research from Ari Kaplan explores how law firm leaders are responding to changing client expectations, evolving economics, talent transformation, and AI governance.
Joe Patrice is an editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.