The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Supreme Court's Shrinking Docket Is Increasingly Backloaded
The justices are hearing future cases, but that has not sped up their work.
The Supreme Court hears fewer cases than it used to, and justices write more separate opinions. Another change in the Court's docket has been that it's increasingly backloaded. The Court doesn't grant enough cases in the spring for the coming Fall, so the next term's cases get pushed later, contributing to the June (or even July) crunch of opinions at the end.
Kimberly Robinson of Bloomberg reports:
The justices have so far granted more than two dozen cases to be heard in their upcoming term, a handful short of the number needed to fill the court's first three argument sittings in October, November, and December. For a court that's hearing around 60 cases a term, that's a significant share of the workload pushed back.
The slow start means the justices will have to make up the deficit, creating a domino effect when hearing more cases later in the term means more opinions will stack up at the end, too. That's typically in late June, but last term slipped to early July. . . .
The court's rules contemplate approximately 115 days from when a case is granted to when it is argued—45 days for the initial brief, 30 for the response, 30 for the reply, and at least 10 days for the justices to review the briefs.
Because the court takes a summer recess from approximately July to October, that means any cases to be argued in the fall must generally be granted from mid-January to the end of the term. That's right when the court is the busiest, preparing for oral arguments and drafting opinions.
Taking fewer cases has not resulted in cases being decided more quickly, but it may have contributed to a proliferation of opinions (and longer opinions too).
The number of concurring opinions has gone up in recent terms, according to data compiled by Adam Feldman, of the blog Empirical SCOTUS. The percentage of total opinions that have been concurrences has fluctuated between 25% and 34% between 2017 and 2023, according to Feldman.
The justices last term penned more concurring opinions, 62, than majority ones, 59, accounting for almost 40% of total decisions issued in argued cases, a Bloomberg Law analysis showed. . . .
And those separate opinions have gotten longer. The average length of a concurring opinion has ballooned from 815 words in the court's 2016 term to 2,155 words last term, according to statistics compiled by Feldman and University of Florida political science professor Jake Truscott. . . .
Like concurrences, majority and dissenting opinions have also become longer, according to Feldman and Truscott's statistics.
Majority opinions have grown by nearly 800 words since 2016 to just over 5,000 words and dissents have more than doubled in that same period to around 5,900 words.
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
The US supreme court should just do what every other court I know of does, including apex courts, and just grant cert all year round, hear cases all year round, and decide cases all year round. This habit of finishing all cases by the start of July and then starting over in October is wildly inefficient.
Indeed. They really need to start treating this like a full time job.
Actually, in the spirit of the recent Court packing proposals, why don't the Democrats propose to switch to paying the Justices a monthly salary payable only during the time the Court is actually in session, which just computes out to the same annual wage if they were to work a normal number of days a year?
It would certainly be amusing to see the Justices forced to rationalize their part time workload.
Well for one thing, the supreme court taking more cases is about the last thing that the Democrats want right now!
Or piece work. They get paid $X for each merits decision they issue.
They can probably just start posting the opinions on the website when they're ready instead of having a grand unveiling ceremony.
Guess being the ones that make the rules is good work if you can get it.
For sure, but then that brings me to my other hobby horse: I'm not particularly convinced that every case needs an oral hearing. Let them do 10 additional cases each year purely on paper, e.g. issues where there's a circuit split but where (in the view of a (large) majority of the Justices) one side is clearly right, or cases where the court below got it particularly outrageously wrong.
What you propose would interfere with Harlan Thomas' summer vacation junkets
Not necessarily. They can still take two months off in the summer. But when they come back they can just start issuing judgments again straight away, based on oral hearings in the spring.
Clearly we need more justices on the supreme court, and only two or three should hear any case, while the rest work on the backlog.
Or put them on piecework rates instead of salary, right?
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire delegated straightforward cases to a panel of 3 judges, which constituted a quorum. In the federal system, and most states, intermediate appeals court handle the straightforward cases.
IIRC, the smallest Circuit Court is only six judges, but they still hear cases in three judge panels.
Personally, I think the ability of Congress to impose procedural requirements on the supreme court is rather limited.
That said, AFIK, there is nothing to stop SCOTUS from deciding to hear cases in three judge panels.
The fact that there’s a statutory quorum of six seems like an impediment.
When I am elected king I will set strict size limits on concurrences and dissents. Until then reform can only come from within the judiciary.
The president can help a little by nominating judges who write short decisions. After the usual screening process to get a list of candidates of the right age, sex, color, and politics.
Remedial writing for Justices?
Brevity, the soul of wit.
-- William Shakespeare
-- Dorothy Parker
-- Me
"When I am elected king I will set strict size limits on concurrences and dissents. Until then reform can only come from within the judiciary."
Personally, I think massive omnibus bills are a much bigger problem than lengthy court opinions.
Get rid of the courts and bring back dueling.
I was born 200 years too late, I’m a great shot, skinny, and I cheat
Frank
Dueling doesn't get rid of the courts. You are probably thinking of trial by combat.