As the Court keeps hearing fewer than 60 arguments each term, we should reconsider the wisdom of leaving just two months to fully resolve the last argued cases.
Or the court could simply stop shutting down for three months every summer, space out its oral arguments over the entire year (e.g., eight sessions, one every six to seven weeks), and get rid of the arbitrary "term" distinction that causes the end-of-year compression in the first place.
While I agree with your point about the Trump administration “has gotten a lot of what it *wanted*” from SCOTUS, I wouldn’t think that would stop it from trying to push the legal envelope as it so loves to do. The SPLC litigation, for example. Perhaps it’s just getting choosy about which laws to offend.
"it held only that the lower court didn’t give sufficient weight under the correct doctrinal test to one specific fact"
I love your work but that's a really poor summary of the judgement! There were two reasons to reverse, excluding some circumstances is reversible error in itself but regardless even with those circumstances excluded it was still clear the Office had reasonable suspicion. Really this should have been a straightforward 9-0 reversal of a lower court who has totally botched it.
The DC Court of Appeals (DCCA) said that it "excised" from its analysis the fact that two companions of the driver R.W. fled from the car when the policeman arrived "because the facts known to Officer Vanterpool did not suggest that R.W. was engaged in a suspicious joint venture with his two companions", so "the trial court should not have imputed the companions’ flight to R.W." (1)
That's a stretch. The act of fleeing doesn't imply any non-trivial probability that the driver was engaged in a suspicious joint venture with his two companions?
I'm not a lawyer, but Justice Jackson's dissent (2) strikes me as remarkably tendentious. She wrote that "[c]ourts excise facts from their analyses every day", citing as an example the fact that, in this very ruling, the Court omitted consideration of "the make and model of the car, the precise location of the stop, the color of R. W.’s friends’ clothing." The color of their clothing? Is she joking? Are we supposed to believe that the fact that two people fled from the car when the policeman arrived is no more relevant than the color of their clothing? She might as well have mentioned that the Court also omitted consideration of the fact that the moon was in the Seventh House and Jupiter was aligned with Mars.
The Court’s calendar is a holdover from a less litigious era where courts took the summer off. It’s time to recognize those days are over and not coming back. The Court should be a full time job and in session every day of the week, every month of the year (just like ordinary lawyers and other workers). Too hard for the oldsters? Retire!
That could be why they stay too long, well past their sell by date. That said however, everyone who is a federal employee does get vacation time, and unlike most jobs, the justices need to take it concurrently, otherwise you might have eight justices working, or only three if the vacation options are just too juicy for some.
No—justices on the Supreme Court of the United States don’t “accrue vacation time” the way typical federal employees do. They aren’t hourly or salaried workers with leave balances. Instead, they control their own schedules.
It will only work if it is done in a way that does not require a constitutional amendment to take away lifetime appointments. I think I've seen something about a rotation in and out of the high court with a set term, but allowing continuation of service in a lower court, thus leaving lifetime appointments in place. I'd bet that most people would retire after that anyway.
The Court has an academic work schedule, giving the Justices time to write children's books and to moonlight. They might hire additional clerks and work like the rest of Americans, so that they can stay in touch. Perhaps ChatGpt can write opinions while they are away.
SCOTUS needs more accountability around both the timing and quality of its decisions. Rules I’d like to see:
1. Decisions must be released by the end of the second month after the Court hears the case (e.g., by April 30th for any case argued in February).
2. Make the written decisions way shorter. State the decision/key holding, the basic reasoning and the test going forward (where applicable). There is no need to respond to the dissents as the decision has been made and the dissents are irrelevant as to what the law/test is going forward. As an example, the majority decision in Dobbs could have been under 5 pages and not the 100+ pages it was.
3. Stop the concurrences. Shorter opinions may automatically help on this point. Much like the dissents, concurrences are irrelevant as to what the law and test are going forward.
I have to admit that I did not have "the Court needs to issue more barely-reasoned ipse dixits that refuse to engage with counterarguments" on my list of things I expected to see in this comment section.
What good comes from the engagement with the counter arguments? The majority often ignores them (we are not going to respond to Justice X’s concerns) or they belittle them. It seems like a waste of time.
Sometimes an argument may seem convincing until one reads a counter-argument. A counter-argument to an argument from the dissent (or vice versa) can also show that the author was thoughtful and tried to be impartial.
I like the idea of always stating the decision/key holding and the test going forward (where applicable).
But if the majority wrote clearer and shorter opinions, that would solve this issue. And ideally the majority opinion reflects the final outcome of the back and forth that occurs before the opinion is issued.
Why not just tighten up the rules and practices for SC review of inferior federal court decisions? Consider, for example reinstating the old system (or some variant thereof) where certain cases could be "appealed" to the SC and, if compliant with the rules therefor, had to be accepted for review and other cases brought via a petition for cert were subject to discretionary acceptance and review? Properly structured - and implemented - this could separate the wheat from the chaff and reduce the SC's docket overload.
Full-time pay, an incredible employee benefit package for part-time work. Between our Congress and SCOTUS, it sounds like a fabulous gig. Not to mention, the personal economic benefits, and opportunities for insider trading. What are we doing?
I wonder if the DC case has something to do with the juvenile at issue. Those cases are litigated by the DC AG while adult criminal cases are litigated by the USAO for the District of DC. Thus, it can be hard to get OSG support to appeal an (adult, local) DC criminal case.
And also, the DC Court of Appeals has had some pretty unusual search/seizure rulings recently, too.
Or the court could simply stop shutting down for three months every summer, space out its oral arguments over the entire year (e.g., eight sessions, one every six to seven weeks), and get rid of the arbitrary "term" distinction that causes the end-of-year compression in the first place.
Perhaps the Court needs some relaxation time … to go out and club a few wooly mammoths.
While I agree with your point about the Trump administration “has gotten a lot of what it *wanted*” from SCOTUS, I wouldn’t think that would stop it from trying to push the legal envelope as it so loves to do. The SPLC litigation, for example. Perhaps it’s just getting choosy about which laws to offend.
"it held only that the lower court didn’t give sufficient weight under the correct doctrinal test to one specific fact"
I love your work but that's a really poor summary of the judgement! There were two reasons to reverse, excluding some circumstances is reversible error in itself but regardless even with those circumstances excluded it was still clear the Office had reasonable suspicion. Really this should have been a straightforward 9-0 reversal of a lower court who has totally botched it.
The DC Court of Appeals (DCCA) said that it "excised" from its analysis the fact that two companions of the driver R.W. fled from the car when the policeman arrived "because the facts known to Officer Vanterpool did not suggest that R.W. was engaged in a suspicious joint venture with his two companions", so "the trial court should not have imputed the companions’ flight to R.W." (1)
That's a stretch. The act of fleeing doesn't imply any non-trivial probability that the driver was engaged in a suspicious joint venture with his two companions?
I'm not a lawyer, but Justice Jackson's dissent (2) strikes me as remarkably tendentious. She wrote that "[c]ourts excise facts from their analyses every day", citing as an example the fact that, in this very ruling, the Court omitted consideration of "the make and model of the car, the precise location of the stop, the color of R. W.’s friends’ clothing." The color of their clothing? Is she joking? Are we supposed to believe that the fact that two people fled from the car when the policeman arrived is no more relevant than the color of their clothing? She might as well have mentioned that the Court also omitted consideration of the fact that the moon was in the Seventh House and Jupiter was aligned with Mars.
[1] https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/in-re-r-w-1092312931
[2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-248_8m58.pdf
The Court’s calendar is a holdover from a less litigious era where courts took the summer off. It’s time to recognize those days are over and not coming back. The Court should be a full time job and in session every day of the week, every month of the year (just like ordinary lawyers and other workers). Too hard for the oldsters? Retire!
That could be why they stay too long, well past their sell by date. That said however, everyone who is a federal employee does get vacation time, and unlike most jobs, the justices need to take it concurrently, otherwise you might have eight justices working, or only three if the vacation options are just too juicy for some.
No—justices on the Supreme Court of the United States don’t “accrue vacation time” the way typical federal employees do. They aren’t hourly or salaried workers with leave balances. Instead, they control their own schedules.
Ah! OK, so they lean too heavily into the personal schedule. They still need concurrence, but not so much of it.
Eighteen year terms!
It will only work if it is done in a way that does not require a constitutional amendment to take away lifetime appointments. I think I've seen something about a rotation in and out of the high court with a set term, but allowing continuation of service in a lower court, thus leaving lifetime appointments in place. I'd bet that most people would retire after that anyway.
The Court has an academic work schedule, giving the Justices time to write children's books and to moonlight. They might hire additional clerks and work like the rest of Americans, so that they can stay in touch. Perhaps ChatGpt can write opinions while they are away.
Solid reporting, as always, but a few rare typos. "Unaninous" probably stood in for "unanimous"; not the only typo in the piece.
(I would have emailed this privately but there is no way for me to do so -- apologies.)
SCOTUS needs more accountability around both the timing and quality of its decisions. Rules I’d like to see:
1. Decisions must be released by the end of the second month after the Court hears the case (e.g., by April 30th for any case argued in February).
2. Make the written decisions way shorter. State the decision/key holding, the basic reasoning and the test going forward (where applicable). There is no need to respond to the dissents as the decision has been made and the dissents are irrelevant as to what the law/test is going forward. As an example, the majority decision in Dobbs could have been under 5 pages and not the 100+ pages it was.
3. Stop the concurrences. Shorter opinions may automatically help on this point. Much like the dissents, concurrences are irrelevant as to what the law and test are going forward.
I have to admit that I did not have "the Court needs to issue more barely-reasoned ipse dixits that refuse to engage with counterarguments" on my list of things I expected to see in this comment section.
What good comes from the engagement with the counter arguments? The majority often ignores them (we are not going to respond to Justice X’s concerns) or they belittle them. It seems like a waste of time.
Sometimes an argument may seem convincing until one reads a counter-argument. A counter-argument to an argument from the dissent (or vice versa) can also show that the author was thoughtful and tried to be impartial.
I like the idea of always stating the decision/key holding and the test going forward (where applicable).
Usually the back-and-forth makes what the majority is actually holding (and what it is NOT holding) a lot clearer.
But if the majority wrote clearer and shorter opinions, that would solve this issue. And ideally the majority opinion reflects the final outcome of the back and forth that occurs before the opinion is issued.
Why not just tighten up the rules and practices for SC review of inferior federal court decisions? Consider, for example reinstating the old system (or some variant thereof) where certain cases could be "appealed" to the SC and, if compliant with the rules therefor, had to be accepted for review and other cases brought via a petition for cert were subject to discretionary acceptance and review? Properly structured - and implemented - this could separate the wheat from the chaff and reduce the SC's docket overload.
Full-time pay, an incredible employee benefit package for part-time work. Between our Congress and SCOTUS, it sounds like a fabulous gig. Not to mention, the personal economic benefits, and opportunities for insider trading. What are we doing?
I wonder if the DC case has something to do with the juvenile at issue. Those cases are litigated by the DC AG while adult criminal cases are litigated by the USAO for the District of DC. Thus, it can be hard to get OSG support to appeal an (adult, local) DC criminal case.
And also, the DC Court of Appeals has had some pretty unusual search/seizure rulings recently, too.