Which Splits?—Certiorari in Conflicts Cases
The Supreme Court is well-known to favor granting review in circuit splits. When, for example, two federal appeals courts disagree over the meaning of a federal statute, the Supreme Court is likely to step in and resolve the confusion to ensure uniformity in federal law.
But the court is also increasingly likely to let such splits languish for longer. It is taking fewer and fewer cases, year after year. And the court dedicates much of the limited space on its docket to cases that do not involve circuit splits—cases that, say, present an opportunity to overrule precedent or that implicate patent matters.
These trends give rise to several questions: If the Supreme Court is going to grant review to resolve only certain limited circuit splits, which splits is the court likely to resolve? Conversely, which splits are likely to languish? And how, if at all, have these trends changed over time?
Answers to these questions—answers unearthed using computational text-analysis methods—have important implications not only for questions of uniformity (and associated rule-of-law values), but also for questions of Supreme Court reform. Specifically, a court that is more focused on uniformity in federal law (and less focused on remaking our constitutional order) may be less politically volatile, and so we should perhaps require the Supreme Court to address more statutory splits through an invigorated certification process.
About the Public Law Workshop
Michigan’s Public Law Workshop provides an opportunity for faculty and students from across the University to enjoy weekly presentations by leading scholars producing current work on topics ranging from constitutional law and administrative law to international law, statutory interpretation and beyond. Professors Julian Mortenson and Daniel Deacon organize the workshop. If you would like to receive workshop announcements, please contact Alex Wroble ([email protected]) and ask to have your name added to the workshop’s email list.
