Highlights of some docket dynamics in first “ScotusCrim” column at SCOTUSblog
I am pleased to see the launch of a new column at SCOTUSblog, being called “ScotusCrim” and being authored by Rory Little to focus “on intersections between the Supreme Court and criminal law.” The initial installment is titled “The criminal side of the docket is not what you think,” and I recommend the full entry. Here are some snippets:
Determining what exactly constitutes the Supreme Court’s “criminal docket” is an inexact science. Various cases that are technically “civil” – for example, habeas corpus petitions involving criminal sentences – are thought of as “criminal cases” by many. So too “civil” actions founded on claims of criminal procedure violations….
[M]any court observers are surprised to hear that every term, year in and year out, a significant bulk of the Supreme Court’s merits opinions address “criminal law and related” cases. By my own (perhaps idiosyncratic) categorization, the percentage of this on the docket has not been less than 25% in the past 50 years. For the 2024-25 term, it was over 40%, which is not abnormally high. Of the 67 decisions listed on the court’s own Opinions of the Court site, 29 are either answering criminal law issues or addressing topics of interest to criminal law practitioners.
[O]f these 29 CLAR (criminal law and related) cases, almost half — 14 of them — were “pure” criminal law decisions….. “Pure” does not mean that they were direct appeals of criminal convictions — for various reasons (perhaps to explore in a later column), the court hears relatively few such cases. But the issues these 14 cases evaluated were at the heart of criminal prosecution and defense. Overall, 14 “pure” criminal law cases of 67 court opinions is over one-fifth of the court’s entire merits docket.
I am already looking forward to more ScotusCrim posts, especially because I agree 100% with the observation that there is “a gap in Supreme Court coverage” with respect to criminal cases.
Prior recent related post: