Monday, February 08, 2016

Invisible Justices Part II: The Anonymous Writ of Certiorari

By Eric Segall

Every year the Supreme Court of the United States receives over 7,500 requests from litigants who have lost their lawsuits in the lower courts and urge reversal of those decisions. Lawyers spend thousands of hours working on briefs supporting those requests, and the parties pay those lawyers significant amounts of money. In recent years, the Court has granted approximately seventy-five to eighty of those requests per year. These requests come to the Court through the mysterious petition for a “writ of certiorari.”

The decision whether to grant or deny a certiorari petition is one of the most important decisions the Justices have to make. Which cases the Court deems worthy to review may dictate national policy across the spectrum of important social, legal, educational, political, and economic issues. Yet, although there are instructions concerning the timing and structure of the briefs that need to be submitted, and a few vague considerations the Court may take into account in the process of deciding whether a case is worthy of its attention, there are no written rules or statutes governing how many Justices it takes to hear a case or whether the votes of the individual Justices need to be recorded. The present informal (but consistent) practice is that it takes four Justices to agree to grant certiorari for a case to be heard. The Justices keep secret who votes to grant the petitions and (almost) never provide reasons for denying a petition to hear a case, although occasionally dissenting justices will write separately to argue that a denied petition should have been granted (which then sometimes prompts a Justice who voted to deny certiorari to respond by explaining why the case should not be heard). Amazingly, to the best of my knowledge, no formal record of the individual votes to grant or deny certiorari is kept by anyone.

The Court has not explained why it keeps the individual votes on whether to grant a writ of certiorari secret from the American people. Justice Stevens gave a talk at Georgia State College of Law in 2014 and said he had never considered in his thirty-five years on the bench why the certiorari votes are secret. He remarked that it might be because “it has always been that way,” but also frankly acknowledged that tradition alone may not constitute a good reason. There are strong arguments that this information is important and relevant to public discussion.

For example, shouldn’t we be able to trace the Justices’ personal certiorari votes over time to better understand how these public officials make important decisions? At the moment, we can make statements about the Court as an institution and the cases it decides to hear, but we have no way of assessing the work of each individual Justice when it comes to their certiorari votes. We would not allow Congress or state legislatures to record only their final votes without knowing who voted for the laws and who voted against them. We could judge the legacies of Supreme Court Justices more accurately if we knew their records on certiorari issues.

There are also reasons why litigants might be interested in which Justices voted to hear a case. It is well accepted that, at the time of this writing, Justice Kennedy is the swing vote on the Court in many important areas of constitutional law, including abortion and affirmative action. This year the Court will decide cases involving both issues, and we have no idea how Justice Kennedy (or any other Justice) voted on the certiorari questions. Knowing whether Justice Kennedy was one of the four (or more) votes in favor of hearing these cases might be relevant information to the parties. Lawyers litigate important cases in the lower courts with an eye towards the swing Justices on the Court, and they write the briefs that are filed in the Supreme Court in the same way. Knowing which Justices wanted to hear a case and which didn’t might affect litigation strategy.

Are there valid reasons to keep the Justices’ individual votes on certiorari secret? Some might argue that, if the certiorari votes are disclosed, the public might mistake a vote to hear or not to hear a particular case as an indication of that Justice’s views on the merits of that case. But even if that is likely to happen, the cure is more information about the certiorari process, not secret votes. As a general rule, the government is not allowed to hide truthful, non-privileged information from the American people simply because the information might be misinterpreted. In addition, disclosing the votes after the case is decided (not ideal but much better than the current process) eliminates that problem.

The invisible nature of the Justices’ certiorari process symbolizes a significant problem with the Supreme Court’s practices more generally. Normally, there should be (and usually is) a strong presumption in our society that government processes be open and transparent. When it comes to Congress and the President, there are strict disclosure requirements, including open-records laws and televised proceedings, and when the elected branches or the states want to keep secrets, we place the burden of proof on them to demonstrate the need for that secrecy. But with the Supreme Court, there seems to be an opposite presumption of secrecy and anonymity. This presumption should be changed. The Justices perform an immensely important public duty that affects all Americans when they decide which cases to hear and which cases not to hear. Why should they cast these final votes in secrecy with no accountability?

14 comments:

Joe said...

I saw this discussed in the past by another legal blog and don't see it as a compelling concern. It provides a chance for the justices to consider measures without the concern of their names being attached to things, have a chance to lean without firmly holding on to their decision. As someone noted at the time, if it was not anonymous, there would likely be a behind the scenes vote and then the normal practice would be officially all the justices would agree as a general rule. Some might dissent, but only in special cases of concern for them individually.

Unknown said...

This post contains more itWouldBeNiceIf rationales and no argument showing a need to change. As I noted yesterday, when there is no need to change, there is a need to not change.

  said...

I suggest a compromise:

On First Monday, as an additional order, release — in table form — the cert. votes for Term N-2. That does preserve the record; it allows one to see trends over time; and it preserves deliberative privacy until well after even rehearings.

Of course, it probably won't appear anywhere actually accessible to the public until the relevant bound volume of US Reports is released, which is currently OVER FIVE YEARS behind (most-recently-released volume appears to be 561, for the tail end of the 2009 Term).

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

Primary post: various reasons why there is a need set forth

Unknown: eh. don't think so.

Not convincing.

Shag from Brookline said...

While the Justices granting Cert may be invisible, a Justice (or two) who may be annoyed that Cert was not granted in a particular matter can make him/herself quite visible.

Jaya Permana said...

Kenali Virus Zika Lebih Dalam | Apa Itu Demam Berdarah Dengue (DBD) | Pantangan Makanan Untuk Penderita Demam Berdarah | Penjelasan Tentang Insomnia | Penjelasan Mengenai Chikungunya | Pengertian Dari Penyakit Impetigo | Obat Parotitis Atau Gondongan Terbaik | Obat Meniere Alami Tanpa Efek Samping | Obat Kista Ganglion Paling Mujarab Dan Aman | Obat Alami Psoriasis Paling Aman Dan Ampuh | Obat Paling Ampuh Untuk Mengobati Vitiligo | Obat Tradisional Rubella 100% Herbal Alami | Obat Penyakit Laringitis Paling Ampuh

Jaya Permana said...

Kenali Gejala-Gejala Virus Zika | Beberapa Gejala Demam Berdarah | Buah-Buahan Untuk Penderita Demam Berdarah | Kenali Gejala-Gejala Insomnia | Ketahui Gejala Dari Penyakit Chikungunya | Gejala Yang Muncul Pada Penyakit Impetigo | Obat Herbal Parotitis (Mumps Atau Gondongan) | Obat Tradisional Meniere Paling Tepat | Cara Mengobati Kista Ganglion Secara Alami | Pengobatan Alami Psoriasis Herbal | Obat Herbal Vitiligo Tanpa Efek Samping | Obat Untuk Rubella Pada Anak Ampuh | Cara Ampuh Mengobati Penyakit Laringitis

Jaya Permana said...

Kenali Penyebab Dari Munculnya Virus Zika | Penyebab Dari Demam Berdarah | 5 Jenis Tanaman Untuk Demam Berdarah | Kenali Beberapa Penyebab Insomnia | Kenali Penyebab Dari Munculnya Chikungunya | Beberapa Penyebab Munculnya Impetigo | Obat Parotitis Pada Anak Paling Ampuh | Obat Meniere 100% Herbal Alami | Obat Herbal Kista Ganglion Tanpa Efek Samping | Obat Psoriasis Tanpa Efek Samping Dan Aman | Cara Mengatasi Vitiligo Secara Alami Dan Aman | Cara Ampuh Mengobati Rubella Atau Campak Jerman | Pengobatan Alami Laringitis Herbal

Jaya Permana said...

9 Cara Pencegahan Virus Zika | Pertolongan Pertama Untuk Penderita Demam Berdarah | Pemulihan Pasca Demam Berdarah | 6 Tips Agar Terhindar Dari Insomnia | 4 Resep Ramuan Herbal Untuk Chikungunya | Komplikasi Yang Dapat Terjadi Pada Impetigo | Obat Parotitis (Mumps Atau Gondongan) Pada Dewasa | Cara Untuk Mengobati Meniere Dengan Aman | Pengobatan Kista Ganglion 100% Paling Ampuh | Cara Tepat Mengobati Psoriasis Secara Menyeluruh | Obat Vitiligo Yang 100% Aman Tanpa Efek Samping | Pengobatan Alternatif Rubella Paling Manjur | Obat Laringitis 100% Herbal Alami

Jaya Permana said...

Bahaya Virus Zika Pada Ibu Hamil | 5 Cara Jitu Mencegah Demam Berdarah | 4 Ramuan Untuk Mengobati Demam Berdarah | 8 Buah-Buahan Untuk Mengatasi Insomnia | 9 Tips Untuk Mencegah Chikungunya | 5 Tips Mengobati Impetigo Secara Menyeluruh | Cara Mengobati Parotitis Hingga Tuntas | Pengobatan Paling Ampuh Untuk Meniere | Obat Kista Ganglion Alami Herbal | Obat Psoriasis Berkualitas Tinggi | Obat Vitiligo Yang Alami Dan Ampuh | Obat Rubella Herbal Paling Ampuh | Obat Untuk Penyakit Laringitis Tradisional

Jaya Permana said...

Obat Untuk Virus Zika | Obat Demam Berdarah 100% Herbal | Makanan Yang Baik Untuk Penderita Demam Berdarah | Obat Untuk Menyembuhkan Insomnia | Obat Chikungunya Paling Banyak Dicari | Obat Impetigo 100% Herbal Alami | Obat Ampuh Untuk Mengobati Parotitis | Obat Untuk Penyakit Meniere Herbal | Obat Kista Ganglion Herbal Paling Terpercaya | Obat Untuk Penyakit Psoriasis Herbal | Obat Vitiligo Tradisional Ampuh | Obat Alami Rubella Paling Mujarab Dan Ampuh | Obat Laringitis Alami Herbal

Unknown said...

@Joe: Is the court unable to operate without cameras? No, of course not. So, the only benefit is for People other than the Justices, Attorneys currently arguing before it, and Clients, parties for which a court has zero obligation to provide benefit, generally speaking. So, no there is no need to change demonstrated by this article.

Joe said...

Cars can operate without seat-belts. Must not be a benefit to drivers. Since it isn't a sine qua non of driving. Is this true? Of course not. The justices point is wrong, at least, again without showing more work. As to this, you again are just assuming the conclusion, and skipping the benefit to the public at large too.

Just say "uh no." It will save time & is about as helpful.