The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Where Are the SCOTUS Opinions?
This Supreme Court term is setting a record for not releasing opinions in argued cases.
October Term 2022 continues to be a term of longer arguments and fewer opinions. The Supreme Court has issued fewer opinions at this point in its term than during any term in the past century, even though it hears far fewer cases.
Lawrence Hurley of NBC News has the details:
Back in 1923, the Supreme Court had issued 157 rulings by May 1 in a term that started the previous fall.
On the same date a century later, the current justices, facing a firestorm of scrutiny on multiple fronts, have disposed of just 15 cases, fueling speculation about why they are falling behind.
In fact, the court has decided fewer cases at this point of the term — which begins each October and ends in June — than at any time in the last 100 years, according to numbers compiled by Supreme Court stats guru Adam Feldman.
There is one big caveat: The court hears oral arguments in substantially fewer cases now than it did in previous decades. In the 1922-23 term, the court heard 205 cases, noted Lee Epstein, a political scientist at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. This term it was a mere 59.
The story notes several potential causes of the Court's slower performance: the leak investigation, the need to deal with filings on the "emergency docket" (aka the "shadow docket"), and the dispropportionate share of cases that address complex questions likely to splinter the justices.
It also appears that justices have been writing more. As the number of majority opinions has dropped, the number of concurrences and dissents appears to have held steady. In October Term 2005, for instance, there were 95 concurrences and dissents for 82 majority opinions. Last term there were also 95 concurrences and dissents, but only 57 majority opinions.
So far this term the Court has heard argument in 60 cases, deciding 13 and dismissing one more. That leaves 46 cases to be decided (or otherwise resolved). The Court has not announced its next opinion day.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Wonder now much of this is the result of the Dobbs leak?
This strikes me as a dysfunctional organization, or one being torn apart by internal strife. I'll bet lots of angst over the Affirmative Retribution cases -- and maybe fears that the same someone will leak a draft of that.
Dobbs really didn't end many abortions, there were relatively few performed in the states that have banned them. But a ban on Affirmative Retribution, which is the only "legal" decision the justices can make, will be Kent State Part Deux.
What happens if they aren't done by June 1st? Do we go to extra innings?
Why should they get summers off. Who do they think they are; teachers?
Judges should work full years.
However, I’d be very happy if the Congress met about as long and often as the legislatures in Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Texas: three or four months in odd years only, with maybe a special session if now and then. The Senate could also meet for an extra 48 hours every month to do a simple up-down vote on appointments and treaties. Do their homework before the session, arrive, vote, leave.
In those states, a citizen's life, liberty and property are safe because the legislature is not often in session.
Somewhat 'safer'. Legislators are still legislators.
Also the legislators know that a lot of their "charges" are well armed.
To be fair, every other federal court, and every state court I know of, does.
So, you want to work of government to shift even more heavily to the executive than it already is?
You think the executive does more “work” if the Legistature passes fewer laws?
Yes. Government has a speed the people want it to move, and it will by one branch or another.
Plus with the legislative not checking it, the executive will naturally grow even without that demand signal.
Check out the US for an example of these effects.
I wish there were a way to cap the length of a judicial opinion. A second page is rarely necessary in a dissent. No matter how wrong it is, the majority opinion is right.
Seems like from reading here, very long judicial decisions have become the norm in courts at every level.
I might add that opinions often seem to go off on tangents that aren't relative to the question to be decided.
Which points to one simple way to speed things up. A bit.
Don't wait for the dissents. Once the majority opinion is written (assuming there is a majority for a partcular opinion) just publish it.
If a dissenter or two or three wants to write a beautifully crafted 250 page dissent, fine - the world can see it when it's ready. In the meantime the parties to the case, and those watchers looking for precedents, can look at the majority opinion when it's ready.
As Pauli would have said if he'd been a lawyer "A dissent's not even obiter."
I agree. The probable cause of the delay is the minority dragging their heels.
Now, you do need to circulate the majority opinion long enough to see if the minority have some persuasive response, because that DOES happen occasionally. But, once the majority opinion is written, that review by the minority can happen concurrent with writing the next decision.
No reason to wait on the dissent, since they're legally without effect they can be supplied on a relaxed schedule.
You could go further, just publish the part that starts “Held:” and omit the vote and the names.
In fact, the vote would be nominally secret and while people are free to guess and judges are free to write opinions, there will be no “official” confirmation or denial.
The rest has no particular due date, and is “published” in separate signed documents, that can concur, dissent, or even meditate on the issue without saying which way the author voted.
That would also help create a bright line between what’s the law of the land and what’s just talk. Might also restore a bit of that mystique and help kill the idea that justices represent constituencies.
"You could go further, just publish the part that starts “Held:” and omit the vote and the names."
Is that different from a per curiam opinion somehow?
No. I guess I'm suggesting they should all be per curiam, officially. All the result is published separately.
The “Held:” portion is part of the syllabus, which includes boilerplate text saying that, “The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.” What ultimately determines the law of the land is the majority opinion; the syllabus is just a summary, albeit a summary written by someone who is very good at writing accurate summaries of judicial opinions.
I would imagine that type of change would only happen in a Supreme Court where the majority of justices expect to never be in the minority for an important decision.
Why do you think that ? Dissenters would still get to dissent.
But if they’re liable to have a hissy fit if their dissent isn’t published with the court’s opinion, there’s another solution – get a move on !
And just for the avoidance of doubt, I don't wish to discriminate against dissenters - the same should go for concurrences. Once there's a majority opinion, publish it, decide the case, and leave the extra scribbling for after hours.
We should remember that their official job is to decide cases and controversies. Prosing away for the amusement of the newspapers or law students should be in their own time.
Rarely, a court will publish an order in an urgent case with an opinion to follow months later.
But dissents sometimes turn into majority opinions. Or at least turn majority opinions into plurality opinions.
Not after the majority opinion has been published they don't.
Right; that's precisely why publishing the majority opinion before the dissent has been written is a bad idea. (Actually, a much more important reason is that the majority opinion typically needs — except when Kennedy was writing opinions — to address the arguments raised by the dissent.)
Justices in the majority are welcome to write concurrences dissing the dissents, and the dissenters are welcome to write further dissents dissing the dissing and so on till the crack of doom.
But the litigants want the answer when it's ready.
Article III does empowers the judges to decide cases and controversies. Once they've decided that's the end of it. Dissents, concurrences, they can do in their own time.
You seem to have confused judiciating with a rap battle. I'm not talking about "dissing" anything. I'm talking about a dissent identifying weaknesses in the majority opinion, and the majority opinion either fixing those weaknesses or explaining why they're no big deal or whatever.
Enlargement of the Court could address this issue in a favorable manner.
Be careful what you wish for, Coach
Yep, more opinions are sure to speed things up! ????
and enlarging the court can be done by Congress with the POTUS signing off, or if Congress overrides a POTUS Veto, good thing the DemoKKKrats haven't had control of Congress/Oval Orifice for most of the last 30 years.
If the court were expanded to a fairly large number, with a random panel of 3 or 9 or whatever justices hearing each case, with en banc rehearing possible, then it might speed up opinions, as each justice would be involved in fewer cases. It would also discourage cases that count on the partisan leaning of the justices, and make it less likely that one vacancy would shift the court dramatically.
My thinking leans toward two or perhaps four additional justices.
Hate to break this to you "Jerry" (What is it with "Jerry"?? Seinfeld, Springer, Sandusky.... I thought "Frank" was bad)
how do I phrase this (We used to say "Diplomatically", probably insults some Non-Diplomat segment of the population)
So how many "Additional Justices" do you want President Trump to Nominate? (and probably get more "Push-back" from the Turtle than the Turtle would give any Sleepy J Nominee, although I give Turtle/Props for keeping Merrick Elephant Man off the Court (Would Merrick be one of your "Additional Justices" Coach??"
Jeez, I'm asking a disgraced Penn State (not even SEC or ACC) Ass-istant (emphasis on "Ass") Foo-bawl coach his opinion on Merrick Garland...
Frank
Worth thinking about. Maybe we can try it in a few years.
There are theoretical arguments for a larger Court, but the practical reality is that, if the Court does get expanded, it will be to convert it into a rubber stamp for the party in power. Which will then use that rubber stamp to make sure they remain the party in power, so that it doesn't get expanded and flipped again the next time the other party is in power. Nobody is going to pack the Court and leave our elections still free.
All the push for an expanded Court is coming from people who want that rubber stamp for their side. The theoretical arguments are just academic arguments with no energy behind them.
We would have seen the Court packed in 2021, if it weren't for the fact that the Democrats had a razor thin House majority and a tie in the Senate, and a couple of their Senators weren't willing to go there. If they'd had a large enough majority to accomplish it even with a few defections, they'd have gone for it for sure. As they couldn't, the administration made noises about opposing it, to look good.
The Republicans won't initiate Court packing because they already have a working majority on the Court, and barring an assassin getting past the Court's security, will probably retain it for a couple decades in the ordinary course of events.
But if we see a Democratic President with a substantial majority in both chambers of Congress, Court packing is pretty much assured at this point. Barring a constitutional amendment locking down the size of the Court, which would have to come from a convention.
Great "Cold Open" on Saturday Night Live last night, "President Biden" (whoever's playing him has the impression dead-on) doing standup at the White Whores Correspondent Dinner,
Ripping on Disantis, MTG, only way I knew it was SNL was he didn't do any Hunter Biden jokes (my material "Take my son Hunter, Please!!! "Hunter was a crack student at Georgetown, he smoked lots of Crack" "I'd like to thank all of my family for their support, except for Hunters bastards, who he's not supporting" "Hey man, I get my prostrate checked by a doctor every night!"
Frank "Tough crowd"
Making fun of the President's family is fun. But when it's your only argument, you have a problem.
That’s a really dumb take, Toad.
What is it that you imagine Drackman’s gibe at Biden is his only argument for?
Wondering what might be some of the cases the court ought to have taken, if that is a reasonable question?
I know being a lawyer isn't a requirement to be a Surpreme, but would it be a problem if they wrote 1 or 2 sentence opinions,
here's a Justice Drackman's opinion on anything "Infringing" on keeping and bearing arms (Keeping and arming Bears I'm in the middle about)
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (U.S. Const. amend. II.) The Ruling of the Lower Court is REVERSED"
(Justice Drackman knows all caps is like shouting, thats the poing)
Seriously, Blackmun's Abortion Opinion mentions Hippo-Crates, the American Medical Association (which today is barely "American" hardly at all "Medical" and about as much an "Association" as la Cosa Nostra)
Frank "Brevity is the sole of something"
A different way to look at the Court's numbers, which I think show a much different story:
Stats for the October Term, 1922 (Appellate docket)
- Cases at close of previous term not disposed of: 417
- Cases docketed during the term: 711
- Total: 1,128
- Cases disposed of at the term: 760
- Cases remaining undisposed of: 368
- Source: Report of the Attorney General of the United States for the Fiscal Year 1923 (pg. 13).
Stats for October Term, 2021
- Number of Cases on Docket: 5,797 (5 original)
- Cases disposed of: 5,104 (1 original)
- Number Remaining on Docket: 693 (4 original)
- Cases Argued During Term: 70
- Cases Reviewed and Decided Without Oral Argument: 97
- Source: Table A-1 - Supreme Court of the United States Judicial Business (September 30,2022)
From the NBC article:
You'll notice that, according to the AG's Report, the Court heard oral argument in 303 cases during the 1922 Term. However, Epstein states that the court heard oral argument in 205 cases during the same term. This is a good example of how misleading the Supreme Court Database (used by Epstein and Feldman) can be when trying compare the Court's work over a long period of time.
and probably had fewer "Interns" in 1922 (That's your problem, I get one of these hotty (XX) interns Slobbing my Knob, probably gonna cut down on my "Productivity")
Frank "Intern Ashlee!!, A. Posteriori! Stat!!!!!!, umm no, sorry, I meant the philosophical term, not the other thing..."
How on Earth does that work? Did the Court used to do something that some consider "oral argument" but other's don't?
That really seems like a number that shouldn't mismatch by very much.
On second look, I might have been a bit cavalier in my claim about oral argument. In the AG report for the 1922 term, it says that of the 687 appellate cases that were considered during the term, 303 were argued orally. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that all of the oral arguments took place during the 1922 term. It is possible that some of the appellate cases that were considered during the term were actually argued during a prior term.
The real issue though with the Supreme Court Database, and why the figures from it differ from the official government stats, is that observations in the Database are derived from decisions reported in the U.S. Reports, while the government stats are based off the Court's docket book.
Who cares? SCOTUS opinions are ten years away from being ignored by the rest of the Federal Government.
Democrats/Federals/Marxists have an iron grip on the rest of the institutions. They will soon start to ignore what that can't control.
There are two new Justices who both had very limited experience on appellate courts before joining the Supreme Court. It’s a problem, but it’s not the end of the world. If the term has to go into July and the Justices have to postpone or cancel their paid vacations/teaching gigs, then the term goes into July and the Justices postpone or cancel their paid vacations/teaching gigs. The world survives. The Republic endures.
Umm, that's got about as much chance of happening as Hunter Biden living to 50, I mean "54" (dammit, Hunter actually makes a pretty good case for smoking Crack (or at least smoking Crack as the son of a VPOTUS/POTUS)
Oh wait, you were being Saracastric?, we Ass-burgers have trouble recognizing that, hey, anyone remember the one (Original, done of that re-make shit) "Columbo" episode that wasn't set in LA??
and it was a strange one....
Frank
Spoiler Alert! Season 4 Episode 4 "Troubled Waters"
also one of the "Very Few" Episodes where Columbo appears before the Murder ("Very Few"? dammit, so I have to go back through every episode?? (Original Series only 1971-1978) such Villains, Eddie Albert, Mr. Spock, Captain Kirk, Vincent Price, Ray Milland (Of "Dial M for Murder" fame), Martin Landau, Vera Miles (Hey Now!), Johnny Cash, Donald Pleasance, Robert Conrad, Dick Van Dyke, Ricardo Montalban.....and that's not all of them...
Frank "One more question"
You left out the best: Patrick McGoohan. And, Patrick McGoohan. Also, Patrick McGoohan. One more: Patrick McGoohan.
And Vincent Price wasn't the villain in the episode he was in.
its sad that you know that.
I guess too many of the justices are taking lavish vacations and speaking at think tank events to do their actual job.
Elena Kagan is too busy 69ing with other women in between eating bagels with a schmear.
Pre air conditioning. Everybody scrambled to get out of DC in the Summer in those days.
RE: "Where Are the SCOTUS Opinions?"
Mar a lago, probably.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-declines-block-illinois-gun-law-calls-assault-rifles-particularly-dangerous
Not smacking down decisions that openly defy their rulings, that's for sure.
The Supreme Court justices are highly selective about which cases they take. They use a rigorous screening process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt7U0XycEJE
I'd like to see some a more comprehensive study to see what has changed.
Maybe it was "easier" to decide cases (and therefore faster) back then, e.g., (I'm guessing) there was only one set of law reference books, much less interns, much less influences (amici curiae), etc.
Today, there are thousands of references, many amici curiae, so a lot more info to consider (and I think that's a good thing).