In the Pottawattame County merits brief (here), Paul Clement is listed as counsel of record. Is Clement doing the oral argument? It will be much better for everyone if a former Solicitor General argues the case.
Incidentally, the merits brief disposes of the argument that adequate alternative remedies against prosecutorial misconduct exist:
Petitioners’ amici describe a host of other remedies to punish prosecutors for misconduct. See, e.g., Nat’l Ass’n of AUSAs Br. 7-16; see alsoImbler, 424 U.S. at 428-29. The most notable thing about amici’s lengthy catalog of supposed remedies, however, is that petitioners have not faced any of them. The highest court in the State of Iowa found that petitioners had violated the Constitution by suppressing exculpatory evidence. Harrington v.State, 659 N.W.2d 509, 521-25 (Iowa 2003). What consequences befell the prosecutors for that unconstitutional action? Petitioners did not face so much as a state-bar investigation, and they remain members in good standing of the Iowa bar in private practice in Council Bluffs. “Remedies” that go unused when serious, documented prosecutorial misconduct comes to light are little better, and perhaps worse, than no remedies at all. Unfortunately, the lack of meaningful response is typical.
