Thirty seconds into the oral argument for Good News Club v. Milford Central School District, a case whose fate will almost surely be determined by the High Court's decision in a 1993 case—Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School District—and Scalia is off:

Scalia: "Counsel, did you cite Lamb's Chapel to the 2^nd Circuit?"

Thomas Marcelle (for Good News Clubs): "Yes."

Scalia: "Yet Lamb's Chapel is not even cited in the 2^nd Circuit Opinion? It's not even mentioned, is that correct?"

Marcelle: "Yes."

Scalia: "Yet I assume the 2^nd Circuit Judge who wrote this opinion was aware of Lamb's Chapel."

Marcelle: "Yes, because we cited it to them . . ."

Scalia: "I also assume the 2^nd Circuit judge who wrote the opinion was aware of the case because it reversed an earlier decision of his ..."

Scalia's timing is perfect, the setup, flawless, and all he requires of an oral advocate, at least on days like today, is that they play George to his Gracie.

The facts in Good News are so close to those of Lamb's Chapel that the 2^nd Circuit's decision to just disregard the earlier case may itself be grounds for reversal. Both cases pit the free-speech clause against the establishment of religion clauses in the First Amendment. Both involve fundamentalist Christian groups attempting to gain access to New York public school facilities, after hours, to conduct religious instruction. Both implicate New York school districts' attempts to bar the religious groups on the grounds that public schools may not be used for religious purposes without running afoul of the Establishment Clause.