Tony Mauro has covered thousands of court cases during his nearly five decades as a legal journalist – from Tiny Tim’s divorce to Bush v. Gore. He’s dined with Supreme Court justices and authored multiple books on the nation’s highest court. He’s written for the National Law Journal and USA Today.
The Texas Lawbook is honored to announce that Mauro, one of the most respected legal journalists in the world, is joining The Lawbook team as a contributing writer and correspondent.
Mauro plans to publish articles about the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Bar that have a specific Texas focus. Because Mauro’s articles are substantive and serious, he is the perfect fit for The Texas Lawbook and our 13,400 subscribers.
I’ve known Mauro for more than two decades. We first crossed paths in the late 1990s when I covered the Supreme Court for The Dallas Morning News. We served together on the faculty of the National Judicial College.
Mauro will continue writing for the National Law Journal.
“When opinions were distributed in the press room at the U.S. Supreme Court, it was not uncommon to hear other reporters ask each other: ‘What does Tony think?’” says Texas Lawbook senior editor Allen Pusey, who covered the Supreme Court with Mauro for several years.
“Tony didn’t spin. He had no angles, only a straight-ahead approach to what was actually being said,” Pusey says. “The rest of us, his competitors, loved that about him. He would take the time to help others find the right path, or help them correct the one they were on. In other words, he had (and has) that essential trait that truly great people have: They make others around them better.”
When Pusey was editor and publisher of the ABA Journal, he wanted to hire Mauro.
“We loved that he covered the Supreme Court as though they were the local county commissioners,” Pusey says. “Though he liked the idea, Tony told us his accountant wouldn’t allow it. So, the idea of working with and around Tony at The Texas Lawbook is the fulfillment of a very personal wish. And whether they know who he is or not, I think it will be for our readers, as well.”
To contact Mauro about possible story ideas, his email is tony.mauro@texaslawbook.net.
As a way of introducing Tony Mauro to Texas Lawbook readers, we conducted a Q&A with him about his career in journalism and his four decades of covering the Supreme Court.
Texas Lawbook: Tony, tell us a little bit about where you grew up and your family.
Tony Mauro: I was born in Queens, New York. My father was a union man at the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, and my mother was a school teacher and later a librarian. Both were born in New York of parents who emigrated from Italy. My older brother Henry lives in California. I’m lucky to be married to Kathy Cullinan. Last September, my daughter Emily gave birth to little Hannah, so I am lucky to be a grandfather too.
Lawbook: When did you first think about becoming a journalist and why?
Mauro: I trace it back to a young adult book I read in sixth grade that featured a young intern/reporter who was at the scene when a building burned down. He wrote the story that made the front page the next day. I was hooked at the idea of being in the middle of an event and being able to tell the world about it.
Lawbook: When did you start covering legal issues or the courts?
Mauro: When I was hired at the Courier-Post in New Jersey, I covered some local trials, including the divorce of Tiny Tim in 1977. My editor and mentor Bob Dubill thought I had a knack for legal writing and assigned me to the court beat. He also urged me to go to law school. I did, but lasted only four weeks. I couldn’t work fulltime and go to law school at the same time.
Lawbook: How did you become the Supreme Court reporter for USA Today?
Mauro: Bob was promoted to Gannett in Washington DC, and he told me that if I could cover the New Jersey Supreme Court, I could cover the U.S. Supreme Court. I moved to Washington in 1979 to give it a try and covered the U.S. Supreme Court for the next 40 years.
Lawbook: What do you consider to be the five most important cases you have covered at the Supreme Court during your four decades on the beat and why?
Mauro: Certainly Bush v. Gore in 2000, the most contentious case I covered. There were two Texas cases: the gay rights decision in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, and Texas v. Johnson in 1989, upholding Gregory Johnson’s right to burn the American flag. Johnson was still at it last July 4, burning the flag in front of the White House. The 2008 gun rights case of District of Columbia v. Heller still resonates, and the Obamacare decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius in 2012 was perhaps Chief Justice John Roberts’ most important decision.
Lawbook: By contrast, what are one or two of your most favorite cases to have covered at the Supreme Court?
Mauro: One was Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, testing the use of the words “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Michael Newdow, a physician and lawyer, courageously argued his own case and forced the recusal of Justice Scalia.
Lawbook: What do lawyers need to know about reporters who cover the Supreme Court?
Mauro: Like any reporters, we appreciate it when sources return our phone calls and emails. Even if your answer is “No Comment,” at least you’ve acknowledged that we have a job to do. More specifically, not all of us are lawyers and we sometimes need help wading through the complexity of IP or ERISA cases. Our readers need help too, so please understand why we try to break it down and avoid legalese.
Lawbook: One of your biggest stories was your investigative article in the race and gender of Supreme Court clerks. How did that story come about and what did it show?
Mauro: The more I learned about the court, the more amazed I was at the importance of law clerks in the Supreme Court’s decision-making process – acting as gatekeepers on incoming petitions and as co-authors in actual opinion writing. So in 1998 I delved into who gets these powerful positions at such young age. We found and reported that only a pitifully small number of minorities and women got the prize.
Lawbook: What was the reaction to your story from the Supreme Court and the legal profession?
Mauro: By and large, the justices wanted nothing to do with the subject, perhaps fearing that they would be accused of hiring minority clerks to reach a quota. But one justice told me, off the record, that my research opened the eyes of justices and made a difference with the “feeder” judges and professors who recommend the clerks for the justices. And yet, when I revisited the subject in 2017, the percentage of minority clerks was still very low, though the number of female clerks grew significantly.
Lawbook: Do you have a favorite justice you have covered over the years? If so, why is that justice your favorite?
Mauro: Almost all the justices I’ve covered have been cordial to journalists including myself, and they generally understand why we sometimes write critical stories about them. But my favorite would probably be Justice William Brennan, who was a champion of First Amendment press rights. He had a smiling, grandfatherly demeanor whenever I met him, even though he was not always fond of journalists.
Lawbook: What is one story on the Supreme Court that you have always wanted to report and write but have not?
Mauro: I have long wanted to tell readers more about the health of the justices, just as we learn about the health of president. We learned about Justice Scalia’s many health issues only after he died in 2016, so I asked all the remaining justices to provide me – and the public – information about their health. I got a single letter from Chief Justice Roberts telling me health information would be provided “when a need to inform the public arises.”
Lawbook: Are you for, or against, opening the Supreme Court to television? Why?
Mauro: I’ve been advocating for cameras in the court for 40 years – with zero success. If the Supreme Court is truly the people’s court, why can’t the people watch its proceedings without having to wait on line to get in? I used to think the court would allow cameras in by the turn of the century, but now I am just hoping it will happen in my lifetime.
Lawbook: Who is considered the best writer on the current court?
Mauro: My pick is Justice Kagan. She seems more interested than other justices in helping lay readers understand what her opinion means.
Lawbook: Who is the best interrogator on the current court?
Mauro: The late Justice Stevens was often the questioner who got right to the heart of a case and pinned down a lawyer’s most difficult argument. Now that he is gone, I would Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg and Kagan are the most direct and inquisitive.
Lawbook: How has the level of competence and/or character of oral argument changed since you first began covering the court?
Mauro: I do remember the days when lawyers could make their arguments at the Supreme Court without interruption for many minutes, and it wasn’t a bad thing. But now, it is a total free-for-all, with justices unabashedly interrupting lawyers and each other, making it difficult for advocates to make complete sentences and intelligible points. This trend has contributed to the luster and value of top Supreme Court advocates who are able to pivot and respond to multiple questions at once.
Lawbook: How prevalent are moot court arguments in preparation for an appearance before the court?
Mauro: Almost all top-tier advocates do multiple moot courts as part of their preparation. The Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown University Law Center hosts many of the moot courts, and justices approve.
Lawbook: Does anyone actually understand what Justice Breyer is talking about during oral arguments?
Mauro: Yes, though it sometimes is a challenge. He cooks up fanciful and time-eating hypotheticals to press a point, and they sometimes fall flat. Still, lawyers have to grapple with his questions, and Breyer gets his answer.