A Really Crazy Proposal

I’ve come to expect loopy ideas from many legal academics, but sometimes even I am surprised by how daffy they can get.

According to this BLT post by Tony Mauro, law professor (and UC Irvine law school dean) Erwin Chemerinsky, in a recent keynote speech at a law-school symposium,

said the Court owes litigants as well as the public some explanation why it has denied review in pending petitions. The “vast majority” of petitioners, even some that pose a circuit conflict, are denied review without learning why. That, he said, is an “extremely important failure to communicate.”

According to its website, the Supreme Court has “more than 10,000 cases on the docket per Term.” For some recent terms, I’ve run across somewhat lower numbers, in the 8,000s. Whichever number of total cases is more accurate, somewhere between 98% and 99% of that total consists of denials of review. There would not be enough time in the year for the Court to offer “some explanation why it has denied review” in those cases (beyond, of course, the elementary fact that the petition did not receive grant votes from at least four justices). In the overwhelming majority of cases, the justices don’t tell each other anything beyond their vote to deny. Further, various justices will often have very different reasons for voting to deny review. So the idea that they should find it worth their while to collaborate to generate “some explanation” is really bizarre. I’d much rather they spend more time on the cases they decide on the merits.

Nearly as bad is Chemerinsky’s idea that “the Court should hire a ‘clear writer’ who would boil each decision down to a single paragraph that would be released along with the ruling.” I don’t doubt that the author of the majority opinion could often do a better job setting forth clearly what the holding of the case is. But why should the justices delegate to a Court staffer the often difficult and controversial task of summarizing the ruling in a single short paragraph?

Update: I’ve added the last five words of the last sentence above (which I thought were already clearly implicit in what I wrote) in response to this blogger, who contends that I must be unfamiliar with the role played by the Court’s reporter of decisions, who drafts the very long syllabi that Chemerinsky complains of. (The practice when I was a clerk is that the authoring justice would review and revise the syllabus; I trust it remains that way.) It’s one thing to provide an extended syllabus that closely tracks the majority opinion; it’s a much more difficult task to provide a very short summary that is satisfactory. (The blogger has graciously added his own corrective update.)

Most Popular


Courage: The Greatest of Virtues

Dear Reader (Or Listener), As the reporter assigned the job of writing the article about all of Sidney Blumenthal’s friends and supporters told his editor, I’m going to have to keep this short. I’ve spent most of every day this week in a studio recording the audiobook version of my dead-tree/pixel ... Read More

My American Dream

This morning, at 8 a.m., I did something I’ve wanted to do for as long as I can remember: I became an American. I first applied for a visa in early 2011, and since then I have slowly worked my way through the system — first as a visa-holder, then as a permanent resident (green card), and, finally, as a ... Read More

The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More

Billy Graham: Neither Prophet nor Theologian

Asked in 1972 if he believed in miracles, Billy Graham answered: Yes, Jesus performed some and there are many "miracles around us today, including television and airplanes." Graham was no theologian. Neither was he a prophet. Jesus said "a prophet hath no honor in his own country." Prophets take adversarial ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More