Discretionary Dockets

Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 31, p. 221, 2016

32 Pages Posted: 2 Oct 2015 Last revised: 14 Sep 2016

Randy J. Kozel

Notre Dame Law School

Jeffrey A. Pojanowski

Notre Dame Law School

Date Written: September 13, 2016

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s workload and its method for selecting cases have drawn increasing critical scrutiny. Similarly, and separately, recent commentary has focused on the disparate approaches the Court has taken to resolving cases on its (historically small) docket. In this Essay we draw these two lines of inquiry together to argue that the Court’s case selection should align with its approach to constitutional adjudication. In doing so, we discuss four modes of constitutional decisionmaking and then examine the interplay between those modes, the Court’s management of its docket, and its sense of institutional role. The Court, we argue, has neither settled on one approach to constitutional adjudication nor applied the different modes in any systematic fashion. We conclude with thoughts about how the Court can better offer guidance through its decisionmaking — if that is what the Court still aspires to do.

Keywords: Supreme Court, Constitutional Law, Docket

Suggested Citation

Kozel, Randy J. and Pojanowski, Jeffrey A., Discretionary Dockets (September 13, 2016). Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 31, p. 221, 2016. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2667838

Randy J. Kozel

Notre Dame Law School ( email )

P.O. Box 780
Notre Dame, IN 46556-0780
United States

Jeffrey A. Pojanowski (Contact Author)

Notre Dame Law School ( email )

P.O. Box 780
Notre Dame, IN 46556-0780
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
127
Rank
186,959
Abstract Views
705