Managing the Business of the Supreme Court

Abstract

Major changes in amount and nature of business of Supreme Court present managerial problems. The court's caseload or docket has grown markedly in last 60 years. Whereas in 1920 there were 565 cases on docket, that number grew to over 1,300 by 1950, over 2,300 by 1960, 4,200 by 1970, and to over 5,300 by beginning of 1980s. From more than 5,000 cases each term, court now reviews less than 10 percent. about 150 cases, or 3 percent of docket, are given full consideration and decided by written opinion.' Still, Chief Justice Warren Burger and other justices complain about caseload and workload. Shortly after arriving at court in 1969, Chief Justice Burger warned that by 1980, without the work of Supreme Court of United States break down or it deteriorate in quality so that its historic role not be performed adequately.2 During his tenure, modern office technology and managerial practices have been introduced in court. The justices have acquired more law clerks and secretaries. The court's administrative personnel have increased in number and become more professional. These changes have facilitated more efficient processing of caseload, but without resolving workload problems of justices. Only fundamental changes, Chief Justice Burger again warned in 1983 and 1985, will provide a solution that maintain historic posture of Supreme Court, ensure 'proper time for reflection,' preserve traditional quality of decisions, and avoid a breakdown of system-or of some of justices.3 All of justices now agree that they are overworked by deciding many cases. But they agree on what to do about it. Justice John Paul Stevens has said that they are too busy to decide whether there was anything we could do about problem of being busy.4 Yet, justices differ in their perceptions of problem. Although agreeing that some sort of major change may become necessary, they disagree about causes of workload problem and, in Justice Potter Stewart's view, cannot agree on a solution.5 In historical perspective, increases in caseload stimulated jurisdictional and institutional reform, internal organizational and forced justices to alter their practices and processing of business of court. After briefly discussing growth of docket, this article assesses basic kinds of responses available to court for managing its caseload and workload. * Like other state and federal courts, caseload of Supreme Court has greatly increased over last few decades. This article examines growth in court's docket and alternative ways of managing increased workload. Current proposals are considered in light of past jurisdictional changes and recent organizational and procedural innovations within court. As caseload continues to grow, article concludes, some combination ofjurisdictional, organizational, and procedural responses prove necessary, along with justices' own exercise of self-restraint in granting cases and writing opinions.