I’ve included the sets individually below, but brave souls may wish to download all of them together here (640mb).

Bound Volumes
A PDF version of the US Reports volumes.
Volumes 502-548
OT91-OT05

Slip Lists
These slip lists are 1-2 sentence summaries of opinions that can be found on the Court’s website here.
OT99-OT09

Court Calendar
The Court’s calendar.
OT02-OT10

Granted/Noted Case List
A list of the cases scheduled for oral argument and full briefing every term.
OT03-OT09

Hearing Lists
A list of the cases heard each month and the attorneys arguing those cases.
OT04-OT09 (including OT02 and OT99 incomplete)

Journals
The Supreme Court’s annual journal, including statistics and a detailed account of action taken in almost every case.
OT93-OT08

Opinions
(excludes bench opinions and opinions related to orders).
OT02-OT09 (OT99-OT01 incomplete)

Oral Argument Transcripts
OT00-OT09

Orders Lists
OT03-OT09 (note that there will probably be additional orders issued during OT09)

SCOTUSblog Stat Pack
A compilation of SCOTUSblog’s stat packs, which can also be found on SCOTUSwiki here.
OT95-OT09

Guide for Counsel in Cases to be Argued
OT02-OT07, OT09

Rules
1999, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010 Revisions (including supporting memorandum where available)

Related posts

• No related posts detected.

OT09_term_index_final

Related posts

• Which Justices Write The Most 9-0 Opinions? 5-4 Opinions? (February 27, 2009)
• Which Justice Is The Most Talkative? (November 8, 2007)
• What Can A Person Do In 92.65 Days? (June 30, 2007)

This pattern holds true with surprising frequency. Oddly enough, there were two months during OT 09 where the Court didn’t follow its usual opinion distribution. During November, when the Court heard eleven cases, Justice Stevens did not author any majority opinions.

During December, when the Court heard nine opinions, Justice Kennedy did not author any majority opinions and Justice Ginsburg authored two.

There are strategic reasons for this anomaly. One scenario occurs when the Court hears only 9 cases and one justice is integral to bringing a majority together in two cases. For example, if Justice Kennedy was the decisive vote in two 5-4 majority and the senior justices in both (perhaps even the same justice) determines that it is important for Justice Kennedy to author both, there would likely be no interference from the other members of the Court.

Unfortunately, that scenario isn’t likely to have played out here. In November, there were five 9-0 or 8-0 opinions and Justice Stevens joined four of them in full. Two of the ones that Justice Stevens joined in full – Beard v. Kindler and Kucana v. Holder – were written by authors who had already been given another assignment for the month. At least in theory, either case could have been given to Justice Stevens without impacting the lineup of the unanimous decision. Justice Stevens dissented in only two cases out of the nine decided during November.

During December, Justice Ginsburg had two majority opinions and Justice Kennedy had none. Justice Kennedy dissented in an unusually high number opinions that month – four out of nine – but there were several instances where he joined a majority opinion in full. In Florida v. Powell, for example, Justice Kennedy joined Justice Ginsburg 7-2 majority opinion and could have authored the majority to give each justice exactly one majority opinion for the month.

The odd distribution from the November and December compounded to create an imbalance going into the holiday season. That imbalanced lasted throughout the term, as you can see in the chart below.

Compare that to the distribution after December and the total distribution for OT 08. [I've included Citizens United as a OT08 case]

There are a variety of conspiracy theories about why an aberration like this could occur. During OT99, for example, Justice Stevens didn’t author any opinions from the April session because – as the story goes – he lost the majority in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale to Chief Justice Rehnquist when Justice Kennedy flipped sides while opinions were being drafted. If that happened here, it might explain why Justice Kennedy didn’t author any opinions in December. Honestly though, from the set of cases in November and December, I can’t see where that would have happened. The fact that Justice Kennedy didn’t author any opinions in December also tells me that the court already knew something was awry when it distributed opinions for that month. My guess is that the December distribution was a reaction to something that had happened after the Court’s last conference in November.

The obvious reason, and the one discussed by Tom Goldstein here, is that Justice Stevens lost the majority opinion to Justice Kennedy somewhere in the drafting process. The fact that Justice Stevens’ concurring opinion reads like a majority opinion supports this theory.

At the beginning of Section I of his opinion, Justice Stevens writes:

Although the Court provides a brief statement of facts, a more complete explication may be useful for those unfamiliar with petitioners’ patent application and this case’s procedural history.

That seems like a convenient excuse to use the same statement of facts that was originally drafted for Section I of the majority opinion.

Related posts

• Supreme Introductions (December 20, 2008)
• OT 08 Term Statistics (February 26, 2009)
• Kelo Turns Three Today (June 23, 2008)

—

You can see from the Term Index that Justice Stevens is the most likely author of the majority opinion in Bilski.

Related posts

• Which Justices Write The Most 9-0 Opinions? 5-4 Opinions? (February 27, 2009)
• Which Justice Is The Most Talkative? (November 8, 2007)
• What Can A Person Do In 92.65 Days? (June 30, 2007)

More specifically:

Case List
Condensed Case List (formerly the Term Index)
Vote Breakdown
Vote Breakdown Data

Related posts

• Which Justices Write The Most 9-0 Opinions? 5-4 Opinions? (February 27, 2009)
• Which Justice Is The Most Talkative? (November 8, 2007)
• What Can A Person Do In 92.65 Days? (June 30, 2007)

Graham v. Florida- Held: The [Cruel and Unusual Punishment] Clause does not permit a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a nonhomicide crime.

Abbott v. Abbott- Held: A parent has a right of custody under the [Hague] Convention by reason of that parent’s ne exeat right.

United States v. Comstock- Held: The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress authority sufficient to enact [civil-commitment statutes for sexually dangerous prisoners].

Sullivan v. Florida- Dismissed as Improvidently Granted

I’ve posted new term statistics. Enjoy!

Term Index
Voting Breakdown
Opinion Breakdown

Related posts

• No related posts detected.

Is it her? Hard to say…

[Update: No, not hard to say. It's actually Richard Epstein's wife. Whoops?]

Related posts

• No related posts detected.

Complete
—
Term Index
Opinion Breakdown
Vote Breakdown

Related posts

• Which Justices Write The Most 9-0 Opinions? 5-4 Opinions? (February 27, 2009)
• Which Justice Is The Most Talkative? (November 8, 2007)
• What Can A Person Do In 92.65 Days? (June 30, 2007)

The biggest problem, at least for me, is that with any new Justice comes a slew of recusals. New justices that come from circuit courts have an even higher recusal rate than other justices. The biggest problem with recusals is not the impact they have on the Court, but the impact they have on my term statistics. You cannot imagine how frustrating it is to have 5-3, 6-2, 7-1, or 8-0 opinions.

Unfortunately for me, President Obama probably won’t take my concerns very seriously and is likely to appoint someone who will spark a slew of recusals. Tom Goldstein correctly noted that General Kagan would not spark as many recusals as some commentators have mentioned, but there are still at least 5 recusals from her alone. Judges Diane Wood and Merrick Garland would likely recuse themselves from many cases coming from their circuits. Judge Wood’s circuit, the Seventh Circuit, is the circuit that contributes the second greatest number of cases to the Supreme Court’s docket while Judge Garland’s circuit, the DC circuit, contributes relatively few every year.

Related posts

• Which Justices Write The Most 9-0 Opinions? 5-4 Opinions? (February 27, 2009)
• Which Justice Is The Most Talkative? (November 8, 2007)
• What to Expect if Obama Chooses a Bold Nominee (April 11, 2010)

Complete (includes all three charts)
—
Term Index
Opinion Breakdown
Vote Breakdown

Related posts

• Which Justices Write The Most 9-0 Opinions? 5-4 Opinions? (February 27, 2009)
• Which Justice Is The Most Talkative? (November 8, 2007)
• What Can A Person Do In 92.65 Days? (June 30, 2007)

Barring an incredibly surprising turn of events, Justice Kennedy will be writing the majority opinion in that case.

Related posts

• Upcoming Cases to Watch (June 17, 2009)
• The Odd Opinion Distribution of OT 09 (July 6, 2010)
• Supreme Introductions (December 20, 2008)

Gregory Garre, former Solicitor General, will argue two times in the next two weeks, once in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez for the respondents and once in Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms for the petitioners. Last year, another Gregory – Gregory Coleman – argue twice during the April session. Curious.

Related posts

• Time to Update the Resume (April 29, 2009)
• Thoughts on Boumediene Oral Arguments (December 5, 2007)
• The Weeks Ahead (April 12, 2009)

I’ve been looking at the data with an eye towards gleaning a patter from the Court’s decisions. I’m not sure how the decision-making process works, but I’m certain that this is a decision made by the Chief Justice or the entire court- this is not a decision that could be made by the court’s staff.

Assuming that one or more members of the court actively vote on whether or not to grant C-SPAN’s infrequent requests, there are a few theories that could explain how the court decides when to release oral argument recordings on an expedited schedule:

1) A few of the justices wants to emphasize the seriousness of the case to one of their colleagues and therefore allows C-SPAN to air audio coverage of the case. Allowing audio to be released could play a role in amplifying the media coverage of a case and the Justices would certainly notice if their voices were being broadcast on the nightly news. In a case like Heller, the conservative justices might want to make it clear to Justice Kennedy that public opinion belong to their side.

2) The flip side of (1). Justices are trying to underscore the importance of a ruling for one of their fellow justices in an effort to make an uncomfortably broad ruling seem more palatable. For example: In a case like Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the conservative justices might like to see media coverage minimized so Justice Kennedy wouldn’t feel so uncomfortable ruling in their direction.

3) Another strategic move I haven’t discovered (TITCR)

4) Caprice.

You can see the C-SPAN list below the fold.

2000-2001 Term
1-Dec Bush v Palm Beach County Canvassing Board – Agreed
11-Dec Bush v Gore – Agreed

2002-2003 Term
1-Apr Grutter v Bollinger – Agreed
1-Apr Gratz v Bollinger – Agreed

2003-2004 Term
8-Sep McConnell v FEC – Agreed
20-Apr Rasul v Bush and Al Oday v US – Agreed
27-Apr Cheney v US District Court – Agreed
28-Apr Hamdi v Rumsfeld – Agreed
28-Apr Rumsfeld v Padill – Agreed

2004-2005 Term
13-Oct Roper v Simmons – Denied
2-Feb McCreary County v ACLU – Denied

2005-2006 Term
30-Nov Ayotte v Planned Parenthood of Northern New England – Agreed
6-Dec Rumsfeld v Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights – Agreed
16-Feb Request to tape the investiture of Alito at the Court – Denied

1-Mar League of United Latin v Perry – Denied
28-Mar Hamdan v Rumsfeld – Agreed

2006-2007 Term
8-Nov Gonzalez v Planned Parenthood – Agreed
8-Nov Gonzalez v Carhart – Agreed
4-Dec Parents Involved v Seattle School District No. 1 – Agreed
4-Dec Meredith v Jefferson County Board of Education – Agreed
10-Jan Davenport v Washington Education Association – Denied
20-Feb Rita v United States – Denied
25-Apr FEC v Wisconsin Right to Life – Denied

2007-2008 Term
9-Oct Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific Atlanta – Denied
10-Oct Medellin v. Texas – Denied
5-Dec Boumediene v. Bush & Al Odah v. U.S. – Agreed
7-Jan Baze v. Reesv – Agreed
9-Jan Crawford v. Marion County – Denied
18-Mar District of Columbia v. Heller – Agreed
25-Mar United States v. Ressam – Denied
16-Apr Kennedy v. Louisiana – Denied

2008-2009 Term
8-Oct Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Counc – Denied
6-Oct Altria Group, Inc. v. Good – Denied
4-Nov FCC v Fox Television – Denied
12-Nov Pleasant Grove City v. Summum – Denied
3-Dec Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams – Denied
10-Dec Ashcroft v. Iqbal – Denied
3-Mar Caperton v. A.T. Massey – Denied
29-Apr Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder – Agreed
9-Sep Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – Agreed

2009-2010 Term
2-Nov Jones v. Harris Associates – Denied
9-Nov Graham v. Florida – Denied
9-Nov Sullivan v. Florida – Denied
23-Feb Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project – Denied
1-Mar Skilling v. U.S. Enron – Denied
2-Mar McDonald v. Chicago – Denied
19-Apr Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez – Denied

Total Cases – 46 (not counting request for Alito investiture)
Agreed – 21
Denied – 25

Related posts

• Oral Argument audio recording released in Northwest Austin (April 29, 2009)
• Time to Update the Resume (April 29, 2009)
• The Weeks Ahead (April 12, 2009)

Shamelessly stolen from John Elwood’s post at VC.

Related posts

• No related posts detected.

If the President were to consider a more bold nominee, he would take a series of steps, maybe even starting later this week, to soften the announcement of his pick and to start controlling the story before the final name is ever announced.

First, the President would leak a series of names that make his nominee look moderate. The administration would want to get the current ‘short-list’ out of the news because it is hard to imagine any nominees being more moderate than Elena Kagan. The administration might leak names like Harold Koh, Kathleen Sullivan, and Pamela Karlan. We might even have a report of Koh meeting with staffers in the west wing for three hours on a Saturday morning. The same strategy would come into play if the President wanted to select a politician, but we might hear leaks like Deval Patrick and Jennifer Granholm. I would be surprised if President Obama didn’t start moving a nominee into place in the next two weeks. The timing of Justice Stevens’ announcement gives the President adequate time to soften the blow of a bold nominee by letting groups of similarly ideological candidates test the waters for enough time to get a thorough first-impression. As long as he announces his nominee befor June, the nominee should have little trouble being confirmed before the start of the court’s term in October.

The administration has already started to disassociate itself with the oft-mentioned shortlist with Garland, Kagan, and Woods. By all accounts, the President still hasn’t completely made up his mind but putting out test balloons early would help him leave his options open.

Related posts

• The Upcoming Weeks (May 16, 2009)
• The Healthcare Vote and Justice Stevens’ Replacement (March 22, 2010)
• The Final Opinions (June 27, 2009)

I can only conclude that my colleagues were unduly frightened by two or three images on the tape that looked like bursts of lightning or explosions, but were in fact merely the headlights of vehicles zooming by in the opposite lane. Had they learned to drive when most high- speed driving took place on two-lane roads rather than on superhigh- ways—when split-second judgments about the risk of passing a slow- poke in the face of oncoming traffic were routine—they might well have reacted to the videotape more dispassionately.

If you have time, the whole dissent is pretty interesting.

Related posts

• Yankee Justice (May 26, 2009)
• Who Is The Funniest Justice? (November 10, 2007)
• Which Justice Will Author The Medellin Opinion? (March 19, 2008)

Related posts

• Which Justice Is The Most Talkative? (November 8, 2007)
• What to Expect if Obama Chooses a Bold Nominee (April 11, 2010)
• Unity Defined (June 11, 2007)

Because of his victory yesterday, the President is as popular as ever within his party but has seen his numbers sink with the general population. Yesterday’s vote saw the President finally shed his veneer of bipartisanship and all signs point to the fact that he’d rather make his next move an uncontroversial one. The nomination of Judge Wood or even a dark horse like Kathleen Sullivan would further inflame a Republican base that will soon be raising support (read: $$$) on the President’s healthcare bill. The nomination of Elena Kagan would be a comparatively uncontroversial nomination because she doesn’t have the same paper trail that most politicians or judges have accumulated.

Liberals in his party hope that the President feels liberated by the healthcare vote. In their view, the President no longer needs the capital that he was saving for the healthcare vote and can now make the ambitious ‘Scalia-like’ nomination that they were clamoring for last year. Even in Washington, where the next election start as soon as the previous one ends, a nomination in the summer of 2010 is a long way from the November 2012 election.

Of course, this administration has always been nervous about courting controversy. The President is likely to see the immediate post-HCR period as a time for reconciliation and he’d certainly prefer a vacancy next summer instead of in his weakened position today. The President would have a tough time recovering from HCR and a controversial nomination four months later. Whatever his decision, passage of the healthcare bill yesterday is likely to have a very real effect on the President’s decision.

Related posts

• Judge Sotomayor: Why Her? (May 26, 2009)
• Today Is “Safe Harbor” Day 2008 (December 9, 2008)
• The In Vogue Word Of The Day: Stare Decisis (June 28, 2007)

First, the links: Term Index and Term Opinion Breakdown. Honestly, the names don’t mean much and last year I called the same charts “Term_Index” and “Term_Index_2,” respectively.

The Term Index lists each case by the sitting in which it was heard. For each case, you can see 1) the author of the majority opinion, 2) the number of days between oral arguments and a decision, 3) the decision split (9-0, 8-1, etc.), 4) and the judgement (Affirmed, Remanded, Vacated and Remanded, etc.).

The Term Index will also help you play everyone’s second favorite game*: guess the author of the opinion. For example, there are four undecided opinions in the October sitting and three Justices have not released any opinions from the term. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Breyer have written two opinions from October already so they almost certainly will not receive third assignments. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Ginsburg have both released two opinions from November (not shown above) and that fact decreases the likelihood of them authoring two opinions in October (although it does happen with some frequency). Beyond those clues, you’d have to know something about each case or historical authorship over different subjects. If Justice Stevens expects to retire this term, he may assign himself a greater number of blockbuster opinions (US v. Stevens, Salazar v. Buono). On the other hand, Justice Kennedy’s penchant for first amendment cases and his position at the Court’s ideological center make him more likely to author those same opinions.

I’m not sure how to deal with cases that are argued but later disposed of with a per curiam opinion. This year, the only case that has been handled this way is Briscoe and I’ve taken it off of the Opinion Breakdown because of the way it messed up different calculations. I’ve left Briscoe on the Term Index but I might change that in the next version.

The OT09 Opinion Breakdown provides interesting insight into the speed in which Justices author opinions.

This chart is pretty empty right now, but by the end of the term, this should become really interesting.

*Of course, everyone’s favorite game is to guess who will retire at the end of the term.

Related posts

• Which Justices Write The Most 9-0 Opinions? 5-4 Opinions? (February 27, 2009)
• Which Justice Is The Most Talkative? (November 8, 2007)
• What Can A Person Do In 92.65 Days? (June 30, 2007)

The new site definitely has an visual appeal that was lacking with the old site but it doesn’t give us any new information. In a press release, the Court mentions that further changes are forthcoming. In the last few years the Court has taken huge steps forward in releasing more informative transcripts and enhancing the information that makes its way to the website. With that in mind though, the Court has always moved at a sluggish pace in getting updates to its website. Bringing the site in-house should help speed up the process of adding more information.

Related posts

• SCOTUSTV (May 27, 2007)
• SCOTUS on YouTube?! ZOMG!!!!!!1 (April 30, 2007)
• Oral Argument audio recording released in Northwest Austin (April 29, 2009)