A Lawyer Just Won the Biggest Supreme Court Case in 237 Years. His Secret Weapon? An Improv Coach.

How Improv Helped Win a Trillion-Dollar Supreme Court Case.

In November 2025, attorney Neal Katyal walked up to the mahogany podium at the Supreme Court of the United States and did something no lawyer had done in the court’s 237-year history: convinced the justices to strike down a sitting president’s signature initiative.

To prepare for the most consequential argument of his career, he hired four coaches. One of them was an improv coach. What she taught him is exactly what PowerProv workshops build in every team — and his account of what happened in that courtroom just might be the most compelling real-world case for improv-based communication training we’ve ever seen.

---

---

The Stakes — and Why This Matters Beyond Law

There is a mahogany podium at the Supreme Court of the United States. People have died there — one mid-argument, another collapsing and dying soon after. In his TED Talk, Katyal describes standing ten feet from nine minds ready to attack, fielding fifty questions in thirty minutes, with no prepared speeches permitted. Every word, every pause, every tone under scrutiny. No rewinds. Flinch and the justices pounce.

But Katyal is quick to say the stakes aren’t unique to law. “Each of you has something like that,” he says. “A place in which words matter. The right words can win and the wrong words make a huge difference.”

A high-stakes client pitch. A difficult conversation with a board member. A performance review that could change someone’s career. A team meeting where an idea needs to land or a project dies. The stakes are different. The communication pressure is the same.

What Improv Training Taught Him

Of his four coaches — a mindset coach, an AI-powered research tool, an improv coach, and a meditation coach — Katyal describes the improv work as addressing “the hardest” thing he needed: connection.

“Here I needed to connect with nine very sceptical legal minds and to do so in real time,” he says. “Enter my improv coach. What does improv have to do with the Supreme Court of the United States? Everything.”

Her instruction was simple and precise: “Neal, you need to actually listen. Actually listen.”

She taught him to quiet his own thoughts — to stop preparing his next response while the other person was still speaking — and to trust himself to find the right words after he had genuinely heard what was said. That is the Yes And principle at its most fundamental: absorb what’s coming at you, build on it rather than deflecting or redirecting, and let the real response emerge from real listening.

The result, in Katyal’s own words: “When the justices attacked, I validated their concerns and then bridged back. The interrogation became a dialogue. The room’s energy flipped.”

A room of nine hostile minds became a conversation. Not because Katyal had better arguments — he’d had those for months. But because he was finally listening well enough to respond to what was actually being asked, rather than what he’d prepared for.

The Moment AI Couldn’t Predict

One of the most striking moments in Katyal’s talk involves the limits of “Harvey,” his AI tool — a bespoke system trained on 25 years of Supreme Court questions and opinions that predicted the justices’ lines of questioning with remarkable accuracy.

Justice Barrett asked a question Harvey hadn’t predicted.

In the half-second before he answered, Katyal describes doing something he says no algorithm can replicate: “I looked at her. I really looked. I wanted to understand her worry. And I answered the worry.”

Not the question as stated. The worry underneath it. The concern behind the words. The thing a justice might not say directly but that determines how they’ll vote.

This is what genuine active listening produces — not a prepared answer retrieved from memory, but a real response to what’s actually present in the room. It’s the difference between performing communication and doing it. And it’s exactly what his improv training had built in him over months of practice.

Katyal’s conclusion from the experience: “Connect. That’s the last irreplaceable human skill. Persuade one person to change their mind by appealing to something beneath the surface. Adjust not just the argument, but the delivery, the pause, the tone, the look that says, ‘I hear you. And here is my answer.'”

A Note on the Talk’s Reception

Katyal’s TED Talk has attracted significant commentary — some of it critical. Legal scholars and commentators have noted that the case involved large teams of lawyers across multiple firms, dozens of amicus briefs, and years of groundwork by legal advocates — none of whom Katyal named in the talk. The debate about who deserves credit for winning the case is a legitimate one.

But that debate is separate from what Katyal described happening in the room. His account of what improv training taught him — and how it changed the dynamic of his argument — is specific, credible, and consistent with everything behavioural science tells us about high-performance communication. Whatever role the broader legal team played in building the case, Katyal is describing what happened in real time at the podium. And what he describes is improv at work.

You Don’t Have to Argue Before the Supreme Court to Need These Skills

The improv principles Katyal described — listening before responding, building on what’s actually being said, reading what’s beneath the surface and answering that — are not courtroom techniques. They are human communication techniques. They apply in every high-stakes interaction: a board presentation, a sales conversation, a performance review, a difficult team meeting, a job interview.

These are exactly the skills PowerProv workshops build. Not through theory, not through a slide deck on active listening, but through the same methods Katyal’s coach used: structured, real-time practice that makes these behaviours instinctive rather than effortful.

The difference between a conversation that lands and one that doesn’t — between an argument that flips the room’s energy and one that doesn’t — is rarely the quality of the content. It’s almost always the quality of the listening.

As one PowerProv participant, Katrina M., People and Culture Manager put it:

“Well suited to any organization that wants to help their teams connect more, improve focus, active listening and have fun.”

Katyal was preparing for the argument of a lifetime. Most of us aren’t facing the Supreme Court. But we’re all facing rooms where the energy can flip — where a conversation can become a dialogue, where the right kind of listening can change everything. For business leaders who want their teams operating at that level, the method is the same. The stakes are simply different.

Frequently Asked Questions

What improv techniques did Neal Katyal use at the Supreme Court?

Katyal credits his improv coach Liz with teaching him to “actually listen” — to quiet his own thoughts while the other person was speaking and trust himself to respond after genuinely hearing them. He describes using the Yes And principle: absorbing each question from the justices, validating their concerns, and building on them rather than deflecting. He says this turned an interrogation into a dialogue and flipped the room’s energy. He also describes looking genuinely at Justice Barrett when she asked an unpredicted question, and answering the worry beneath her words rather than the literal question.

How does improv training improve communication skills at work?

Improv training builds active listening, adaptability, and the ability to respond to what’s actually being said — rather than what you prepared for. It does this through real-time practice rather than theory: structured exercises that make these behaviours instinctive rather than effortful. Katyal’s account at the Supreme Court is an extreme example of the same dynamic that plays out in every high-stakes workplace conversation — the person who listens best and responds most genuinely tends to win the room.

What is Yes And and why does it matter in business?

Yes And is the foundational principle of improvisational theatre: accept what your scene partner offers and build on it, rather than blocking or redirecting. In business, it’s the difference between a meeting where ideas get built on and one where they get shut down. It’s the difference between a negotiation where both sides feel heard and one where both sides dig in. It’s what Katyal used to turn hostile questioning from nine Supreme Court justices into a genuine dialogue. PowerProv workshops teach Yes And through structured practice — not as a concept, but as a practised behaviour.

How do you build active listening skills in a team?

Active listening — genuinely hearing what someone means, not just their words — is built through practice, not awareness. Most training tells people that active listening matters. PowerProv workshops build it through real-time exercises that force participants to respond to what’s actually being said, rather than what they expected or prepared for. The Personal Power Index™ tracks measurable improvement in active listening before and after every session. Teams that practise this way develop the same instinct Katyal describes: the ability to answer the worry, not just the question.

---

Neal Katyal walked into the most consequential argument in Supreme Court history with four coaches. One taught him to listen. That turned out to matter enormously. If you want your team operating with that kind of presence — in pitches, in negotiations, in every conversation where the room’s energy can flip — book a free discovery call with PowerProv.

Want to see what a session looks like first? See how it works.