The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Why Did Justice Kagan Write So Little This Term?
Other than the Chief, Justice Kagan wrote the fewest opinions.
Now that the Supreme Court has issued its final opinion of the term, we can see which justices wrote the most, and which wrote the least.
Majority opinion assignments were fairly uniform: All of the justices had six or seven opinions for the Court, save for the most junior justice, Justice Jackson, who had five.
The Chief Justice did not write any signed opinions other than his six opinions for the Court, but I assume this was due (in part) to his writing the lion's share of the Court's per curiam opinions (there were six, not including shadow docket orders).
Justice Thomas wrote the most signed opinions -- a whopping twenty-eight -- including eight dissents. Justice Jackson was the most frequent dissenter, however, authoring nine. Justice Kavanaugh only wrote two dissents.
Most interesting to me, however, is that Justice Kagan only wrote ten opinions this term -- six opinions for the Court and four dissents. One possible explanation for this is that she was doing more work behind the scenes, or that she was more active writing memos or even opinions related to shadow docket orders. Justice Barrett had the next fewest number of opinions -- fourteen -- seven of which were opinions for the Court (including Trump v. CASA) and four dissents.
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
Maybe Roberts and Kagan just don't like to write advisory opinions? A few of the justices (especially Thomas, but sometimes Kavanaugh and Jackson) have a habit of writing concurring opinions of the style, "I join the Court/dissent's opinion in full. I write separately to talk about something not raised by any party and not properly before us, which I nonetheless would like to discuss."
Roberts tends not to write separately. He rarely dissents, and even then, someone else often writes the dissent.
Kagan dissents more (this being a conservative court), but even there she picks her spots. This term had fewer hot-button cases.
She dissented in an administrative law case, an area of special interest, and recall she wrote separately to dissent in a more limited fashion in another case.
The question for me is if "this term" the stats are truly notable.
She's not very sharp. She has no past judicial service.
On the contrary, Kagan is very sharp. Even when I disagree with her results, her writing is clean, articulate, readable and well-reasoned. She and Gorsuch are my current two favorite Justices to read.
My guess is that she stayed on the sidelines because the other two dissenters were more passionate on the specific issues that came up this term and wanted the jobs.
Aren't the number of assigned opinions just the function of the decision lineups amongst all the cases? It's the luck of the draw for any justice to both be in the majority and philosophically aligned enough to be assigned.
He noted each justice had a similar number of opinions for the court. The discussion is about separate writings -- concurrences and dissents.