The court issues “media advisories” in the most high-profile cases to give media outlets an opportunity to reserve seating. By that logic then, I could count the number of “media advisories” to measure the number of “high-profile” cases in a given term. The court’s website features advisories as far back as OT04.

OT04 6 Roper v. Simmons, US v. Booker, Ashcroft v. Raich, Van Orden v. Perry, Kelo v. City of New London, Arthur Anderson v. US
OT05 4 Gonzales v. Oregon, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, LULAC v. Perry, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
OT06 3 Gonzales v. Carhart, Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1, Massachusetts v. EPA
OT07 6 Boumediene v. Bush, Crawford v. Marion County, Baze v. Rees, DC v. Heller, Exxon v. Baker, Kennedy v. Louisiana
OT08 10 Winter v. NRDC, Altria Group v. Good, Wyeth v. Levine, FCC v. Fox, Pleasant Grove v. Summum, Philip Morris v. Williams, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, NWAMUDNO v. Holder, Ricci v. DeStefano, Safford v. Redding

OT06 was considered a particularly contentious term, but you don’t see that from the number of media advisories. I’m surprised not to see advisories for cases like Hein, Ledbetter, and Morse from OT06 and Medellin from OT07.

I’d have to know more about the procedure for issuing these advisories before I draw any other conclusions, but the numbers are pretty interesting.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts