The U.S. Supreme Court's In Forma Pauperis Docket: A Descriptive Analysis

Abstract

The proportion of the U.S. Supreme Court's docket composed of unpaid or in forma pauperis petitions, petitions filed by litigants who cannot afford the Court's filing fee, has consistently outstripped the percentage of cases granted review that originate on the IFP docket. Scholars and jurists alike attach little significance to this apparent disparity because they tend to write off categorically cases on the IFP docket as frivolous and unimportant. Yet given the large and growing number of IFP petitions filed with the Court, this class of cases requires some form of systematic consideration. This article compares a sample of the unpaid petitions for review filed with the U.S. Supreme Court from the 1976 through 1985 terms to a similar sample of paid petitions to determine whether and how the two dockets differ. Examination of the cases indicates that the IFP petitions are not categorically frivolous and unimportant and suggests, as a result, that these petitions require further consideration in the literature on the Supreme Court's agenda setting.