E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
With the Supreme Court beginning its last sitting of the Term today, now is a good time to reflect on the Court’s plenary docket for the October 2008 Term. According to my records, we can expect the Supreme Court to issue 76 opinions of the Court this Term following full plenary consideration (oral argument and full briefing). That figure does not count the two per curiam summary reversals that were issued earlier this Term without the benefit of oral argument (Spears v. United States and Nelson v. United States), Al-Marri v. Spagone (which was dismissed upon motion of the United States), and the cases that have been dismissed as improvidently granted (Phillip Morris v. Williams and Bell v. Kelly). I also assume that the Court will not issue separate opinions in cases that have been consolidated. Using the methodology employed by the Harvard Law Review in its annual Supreme Court issue, we can expect a total of 78 opinions for the Court for this Term including the two summary reversals previously mentioned. Of course, in addition to the assumptions stated above, the expectation of 78 opinions holds only if the Court does not dismiss any additional cases as improvidently granted, summarily reverse or affirm in additional cases through written opinion, or grant certiorari in a matter requiring extremely expeditious briefing (i.e., Bush v. Gore). Because I suspect that there may be other summary reversals or affirmances by the end of this Term, it is possible that the total number of opinions for the Court may reach 80. In any event, the total number of opinions of the Court for the October 2008 Term exceeds the modern low of 70 opinions from the October 2007 Term, and currently lies very close to the mean (77.2) and median (76) number of opinions of the Court for the past five Terms. In the next post, I will discuss whether the Court’s plenary docket from this Term differs in any significant respects from those of the past few Terms. I hope to post the second part of this series by the end of the week.