As law students at New York University, Dan Rogan and Kate Menendez would take walks around Greenwich Village and Central Park to decompress from the strain of their studies. Like many of their classmates and colleagues, they dreamed of one day arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court, a goal to which many attorneys aspire but few achieve.
Menendez, then a federal public defender, got her wish in 2015. And in February it came true for Rogan, too.
Rogan, a senior assistant Hennepin County attorney who also serves as a Robbinsdale City Council member, argued in front of the high court on Feb. 28 in defense of a Minnesota law that bans electioneering from polling places. He had successfully argued the case in the lower federal courts before the Supreme Court opted to review it.
The case, Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, dates to 2010 when the Voters Alliance's executive director wore a "Please I.D. Me" button and a Tea Party shirt to his Eden Prairie polling station. The button was part of a campaign to require Minnesota voters to show photo IDs to vote.
The court's decision in the case, which pitted the right to vote against freedom of speech, is expected to be announced in May or June.
Menendez, who was named a federal magistrate judge in 2016, successfully defended an indigent criminal in 2015 and convinced the Supreme Court to strike down a federal three-strikes law as unconstitutionally vague. She had worked as a federal defender since the late 1990s.
One of a very few married couples ever to have argued in front of the high court, Rogan and Menendez took turns handling the majority of family duties while preparing for what Rogan called the "pinnacle" of an attorney's career.
"It's the only time in your legal career where you've been able to shut out a lot of different things at work. I can't imagine having it happen at the same time," Rogan said. "Having someone at home realize what you're going through and take a lead role in homemaking was critical."