While the arguments played out in the courtroom, Nike demonstrators protested in front of the great, pillared edifice of American justice. Before, during, and after oral arguments, protesters stood next to a ten-foot long, cardboard Nike sneaker emblazoned with the trademarked “swoosh” and the words “STOP NIKE / PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION.” The shoe was situated atop a mock copy of the Constitution bearing the words “We the People.” One young person carried an American flag, while another carried a sign, reading “Tell the truth, just do it.” Nike, said the protestors, was “the poster child for the evils of globalization.”¹⁹⁹ Throughout it all, as with the oral arguments, Marc Kasky was nowhere to be seen or heard.

As Tribe, Dellinger, and Goldstein exited the Court, they were met by reporters eager to receive their assessment of the proceedings. An informal press conference was held, with all three answering a variety of questions, as news cameras captured their images and words. Veda Manager, Nike’s PR person, was there, as was Jim Carter, Nike’s general counsel. Bruce Johnson, who had flown in from Seattle, was there, too. During the give-and-take with the press, Tribe told a Fox News TV reporter: “No court is a guardian of the public mind.”²⁰⁰ He told another reporter from The Oregonian that his hope was that the “justices will realize that they can get away from the details of commercial speech definitions in cases where it is close.” He then added: “This might seem like a pretty easy case, surprisingly.”²⁰¹

Paul Hoeber, like his client, was strikingly absent. The only speech for their side was the symbolic cardboard shoe stomping on the Constitution. From the beginning, both the client and his lawyers kept a low profile, leaving groups like ReclaimDemocracy.org to take the lead in speaking to the public. It was all done now except for the evening news, the next-day papers, and the Court’s opinion in the matter.

Reporting for the New York Times, veteran Court reporter Linda Greenhouse portrayed the situation as promising for the shoe maker: “Nike found a sympathetic audience at the Supreme Court . . . for the argument that its defense of its overseas labor practices was the kind of speech that the First Amendment protects to the fullest extent, regardless of whether the speaker is a corporation.”²⁰² Tony Mauro, another Court veteran, shared that assessment: “At the end of 70 minutes of oral argument yesterday, the Supreme Court appeared ready to agree that under the First Amendment, Nike should not be subjected to a lawsuit by California activist Marc Kasky.”²⁰³ Charles Lane, writing for the Washington Post, was more guarded: “[T]he tone of yesterday’s hearing was subdued. By the end, it was unclear whether a majority was prepared to rule broadly in favor of enhancing the constitutional status of commercial speech or to dispose of the case on a narrower legal basis.”²⁰⁴