The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Are Petitions for Certiorari Declining?
October Term 2022 saw a significant drop in the number of paid petitions for certiorari. Is it a trend?
There were only 1,252 paid petitions for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court in October Term 2022. This is well below the average number submitted during the prior five-year and ten-year periods (1,645.8 and 1593.8 respectively), as Michael Migiel-Schwartz notes in an interesting SCOTUSBlog post. Is this a trend?
Migiel-Schwartz writes:
This year's decline is substantial: a 21.2 percent decrease from the previous 15-year average, and a 23.9 percent decrease from the previous five-year average. Even compared with the 2019-20 term's 1,478 petitions, it marks a more than 15 percent decrease. . . .
It is difficult to draw meaningful conclusions based on these numbers alone, and it is possible that the 2022-23 term is a one-year blip. The downturn does not seem to be the result of declining merits decisions in the federal courts of appeals. Although they too have decreased in recent years, that decrease has been slow and fairly steady from 2012 through 2023 — not the sudden drop seen this year in the Supreme Court's paid docket.
Whatever the cause of this term's decline, the average of 1,589 is consistent with a longer-term trend downward noted in 2007 by David Stras. "Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, the number of paid petitions filed with the Court ranged from 1,986 petitions in 1990 to 2,417 petitions in 1981," Stras wrote. "However, beginning in 1994, or at about the time of greatest decline in the Court's plenary docket, the number of paid petitions began to plummet, with only 1,693 paid petitions filed during October Term 2004, a nearly 22% decrease since 1994."
It will be interesting to see whether the precipitous drop in petitions filed last term is a temporary blip, to which Covid-19 may have contributed, or is part of a larger trend. Among other things, the change in the Supreme Court's composition could be altering the calculus for potential filers, but it is not clear why this would produce an overall decline in cert petitions, as opposed to a shift in what sorts of petitions are filed. (That is, if there are fewer opportunities for progressive interests it would seem these could be offset by increased opportunities for conservative interests.)
The longer term drop in paid petitions for certiorari is significant, but is far less than the decline in the size of the Court's merits docket. So while the decline in petitions could contribute to the shrunken merits docket, it does not appear to be the driver. The Court is hearing fewer cases than it used to because it is choosing to hear fewer cases. So unless the justices decide to start hearing more cases, or Congress intervenes, we are likely stuck with a smaller Supreme Court docket, whether or not paid petitions for certiorari decline.
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
People are finally listening to their lawyers?
Lawyers don't want to get paid to try to get cases before SCOTUS?
In what universe?
That is so illegitimately cynical. I am not saying there aren't any dishonest lawyers out there who may recommend a path that might be more lucrative, but it is certainly against professional ethics and it is also against my experience.
A LOT of cert petitions are filed because CLIENTS, not lawyers, insist on filing them. There's just something about "fighting them all the way to the US Supreme Court" that clients can't resist sometimes. And I assure you, in MANY cases, a lawyer has advised that the petition has very little chance and isn't worth it.
“Illegitimate”, eh? Yeah, Lefty is always four-square against noticing.
And lawyers don’t figure that getting their names on SCOTUS filings won't help their rates go up, in addition to what they are paid to write them?
Nice story, bro.
And, btw, by Adler’s own account the number of paid certs per case is INCREASING.
FYI, filing cert petitions isn't going to get you any work, and if you are not a SCOTUS repeat player a grant will often mean a paying client will bring in SCOTUS counsel.
The decline in the merits docket is also probably driving part of the decline in the paid cert petitions filed. Less chance of getting cert grant = less expected benefit of filing for cert = less cert petitions.
Yeah, that's what I was going to say.
"So while the decline in petitions could contribute to the shrunken merits docket, it does not appear to be the driver."
The causation runs the other way!
I definitely think that's a factor. I suspect some impact litigation might be reduced because they're worried how the Court will rule if they granted cert. However, most routine cases would be more likely to be declined due to belief in a low probability of getting heard.
Maybe, but the likelihood was always so small that I would be skeptical that incremental decreases in the Court's docket would by themselves substantially affect the calculus of whether to file a petition.
“The longer term drop in paid petitions for certiorari is significant, but is far less than the decline in the size of the Court’s merits docket.”
So the number of paid petitions per case has actually gone up. By an amount sufficient to elicit the term "far". Adler is getting the trend backasswards.
Look, think this through on a functional level. Causality is bound by time: A causes B to happen after A,, not before.
If a decline in cert. petitions were to cause a decline in the Court's docket, then cert. petitions would decline first, and only after would the Court's docket decline. This would imply that the ratio of cert. petitions to cases would increase. For a while, until things stabilized.
If a decline in the Court's document were to cause a decline in cert. petitions, then the docket would decline first, and only after would the cert. petitions decline. This would imply that the ratio of cert. petitions to cases would get smaller. For a while, until things stabilized.
This latter is what we're seeing: Both decline, but the docket shrinks first. It's just a signal indicating the direction of causality!
"If a decline in the Court’s document were to cause a decline in cert. petitions, then the docket would decline first, and only after would the cert. petitions decline."
Bullshit. The number of parties interested in paying to file cert on a particular case presumably depends mainly on the interests potentially affected by the case and the willingness of those interests to finance them. Therefor reducing the number of cases causes an IMMEDIATE decline in the number of cert petitions, not a delayed decline. If there is layered on top of that an increased willingness to pay for cert petitions for some unidentified reason then the number of cert petitions will not decline as much as the number of cases. Which is consistent with the numbers Adler points to.
"Therefor reducing the number of cases causes an IMMEDIATE decline in the number of cert petitions, not a delayed decline."
It literally can not, unless you've got a damned time machine. Do you not understand that? Things actually take time to happen in the real world! Causes precede effects, in the real world.
People can't respond to the decline in the number of cases until they KNOW there's a decline in the number of cases, and have time to react to it!
a $300 fee?? sounds like it would disparately discriminate against African-Amuricans, Hispanics, LGBTQ (and sometimes Y), and peoples of Poorness, how the eff is that constitutional???
Frank
That is the type of legal analysis to be expected at a white, male conservative blog that focuses on transgender parenting, Muslim, lesbian, racial slur, transgender sorority drama, gay, drag queen, white grievance, and transgender rest room issues.
Coach Sandusky, attacking the messenger as usual, Just asking if it's illegal to charge peoples a fee to vote, why is it OK to charge to take something to the Surpremes?? And I know about in forma Porpoise, but what about the Schlubs who aren't Clarence Gideon, just don't have a spare $300 lying around.
The Supreme Court rules allow a party to seek to file in forma pauperis. This would cover people whose financial resources are as meager as your Google skills.
So since you have the attention span of an Amoeba, what about the "Meat" (you know you love the "Meat", everyone loves "Meat) of my post,
"but what about the Schlubs who aren’t Clarence Gideon, just don’t have a spare $300 lying around."
I'll go ahead and help you with the start..
"Duh................."
Frank
You missed the $1000 printing fee,
And it would indeed be somewhat interesting to know how these costs have changed over time.
But compared with he price of employing lawyers it's penny-ante.
Governments should never be allowed to charge a fee for any "service" they provide, including driver's licenses or gun permits. All costs should be covered out of general revenues.
The greater predictability (in political lean) may influence this a little; there might have been more inclination to submit petitions when it was not clear which way Kennedy would rule - 5-4 in favor or 5-4 against?
While it would appear that conservatives would now be more inclined to pursue lots of cases, they might also be inclined to file fewer cases that would give them everything they are seeking at once, which might have been a massive overreach with a balanced court. E.g., before Dobbs, there were many tests of this restriction and that on abortion; none needed at SCOTUS now, when all the action is at the state level or in Congress.
Adler gets it backasswards. Per what he says the number of paid petitions PER CASE has apparently gone up substantially.
Most Americans would not use "stuck with" in that context.
How (and why) would Congress intervene?
Piece-work bonuses?
Why waste money on a petition? They grant so few.
They all have 4 clerks now but do less work than ever.
I confess to being a little confused by this post. Yesterday or the day before, you posted a blog post arguing against the idea that the Roberts court is “activist” (in the sense of overturning more past rulings than previous courts). The numerical basis for this argument was that they overturn fewer past rulings in raw terms.
But in this blog post, you acknowledge that the size of the court’s merits document has dropped significantly, something that’s elided in the previous post. This would seem to at a minimum require considering the “activist” claim in terms of rate rather than in terms of raw count.
You could imagine the reductio ad absurdum version of this is that if the court was comprised of 9 identical judges, each having Sonia Sotomayor’s jurisprudence (or Clarence Thomas’, without loss of generality) and that court was unusually lazy and only took, say, 5 merits cases a year, but _always_ overruled a precedent when they took a case, you’d conclude they’re not activist because their shrinking docket precludes the possibility.
I’m not a lawyer and not someone who publishes in empirical legal studies but if it’s really true that the court’s merits docket has shrunk significantly that has to be a factor in the activist analysis.
All else aside, it's nice to see someone else occasionally acknowledge that Thomas and Sotomayor are basically identical, each devoted to their own highly particular and partisan-oriented jurisprudence. Honestly, I'd love to see them both gone from the bench.
No much it doesn't. Roe was only one case, but it was "activist" enough to make that term an "activist" one no matter how many other precedents were overturned or not.
It's the wrong measure, anyway. Overturning an "activist" precedent isn't "activist" to do.
And to the (small) extent that a rate matters, "raw count" per term is precisely the rate that matters.
Will conservatives remember this point when the culture war winners' backlash against gun nuttery overruns plenty of recent court decisions?
Why should they? You suppose a symmetry that does not exist. Acknowledging the plain text of the 2A isn't activist and "interpreting" it it out of the Constitution IS activist. Things which are different are not the same.
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Stoppit. Just stoppit.
Greater uniformity among the Circuits?
Does Jonathan H. Adler get paid by the word? The article says NOTHING except that the author has NO IDEA about the alleged issue.
On the bright side, it clears the decks for them to start production line curb stomping states and courts that decide to violate Bruen.