McGill '92 Discusses U.S. Supreme Court, Exeter Memories

Lawyer Matthew McGill ‘92 spoke about the stagnancy of the United States Supreme Court over the past year, and shared anecdotes from his time at Exeter last Friday, May 5. In addition to discussing controversial viewpoints regarding the Supreme Court, he also gave his annual review of the major Supreme Court cases of the past year.

McGill is currently a partner at the Washington law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, where he specializes in litigation before the Supreme Court of the United States and other appellate courts. He has argued more than 20 cases before the Supreme Court, and authored winning briefs in most of those cases.

McGill argued before the Supreme Court for Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), which was described by the New York Times as a “doctrinal earthquake.” The case overruled two Supreme Court precedents and established the First Amendment right of corporations to spend general treasury funds on speech activities to influence the outcome of elections. McGill also represented the two same-sex couples in Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013). This case secured the rights of same-sex couples in California to marry.

At Friday’s assembly, McGill spoke about the Supreme Court’s recent decision on Lee v. Tam (2017), which arose from a conflict between Simon Tam and the U.S. Trademark Office. On November 14, 2011, Tam and his band, The Slants, were denied their application to register their name because the Office thought it would be disparaging towards “persons of Asian descent.” The case brought up the question of whether the Disparagement Clause of 1946 was factually invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

McGill thoroughly explained both sides of the case, enabling students to understand a complex trial. However, some students voiced their disappointment with McGill’s subject matter. Senior Bonnie LaBonte expressed her wish to hear more about the judicial process itself. “I was hoping he would have talked more about the evolving judicial process or what goes into making monumental decisions or what the process was like for him,” she said.

Senior Luna Schlor found McGill’s stories about Exeter the most striking. “I really enjoyed listening to him talk about his experiences living in Main Street, and thought the picture of him and his friends was really funny,” Schlor said.

McGill also visited History Instructor William Jordan’s Law and American Society class after the assembly. The class had been reading about the Supreme Court’s decision on King v. Burwell (2015), when Supreme Court Justice John Roberts ruled in favor of the Affordable Care Act. Students had just read “The Oath,” a book by liberal New Yorker Jeffrey Toobin that heavily criticized the conservative viewpoint. McGill, who stood on the conservative side of the case, gave students a new perspective on the case.

Jordan described McGill’s speech as “really interesting,” and appreciated having a conservative viewpoint expressed at Exeter. “Almost everyone at Exeter tends to be liberal, so to hear somebody who’s an alum explain why he thought it was the right decision was really good,” Jordan said. “Nobody had ever thought about that. It’s great to have a conservative viewpoint expressed in a place where they so seldom are.”

Senior Lyle Seeligson, who is currently taking Law and American Society, also went to hear McGill speak about arguing in front of the Supreme Court at his Latin Study lunch. “It was interesting to hear about the more experiential and personal aspects of being before the Supreme Court from someone who’s had first-hand experience,” she said. “That kind of perspective is not one you encounter often, so having Mr. McGill here was a great opportunity for Exeter students to learn more about not only the cases the Court has heard, but the experience of interacting and speaking with the justices up close.”