The Supreme Court's docket for the October 2024 Term includes *zero* appeals from state criminal convictions. That's part of a broader trend—and one with significant downstream implications
This is a great observation. But does this mean Gorsuch was onto something when he told attorneys to file more appeals?
You dismissed his remarks by pointing out that the decline in appeals was entirely among IFP cases and not paid cases. But of course, criminal and habeas cases are disproportionately IFP! Maybe the drop in cert grants is mostly explained by these cases, as both your data and Gorsuch's remarks seem to suggest.
IFP cases are disproportionately criminal and habeas cases, but I *don't* think the reverse is true. I'd have to look, but my anecdotal sense is that, both today and over the relevant time periods, a significant *majority* of the criminal/habeas cases that the Court has taken have been from the "paid" docket. Just looking at this term, for instance, four of the five "CFYs" (federal criminal appeals) on the docket thus far are paid.
Just doing some *super* back-of-the-envelope math. Say 10% of grants are IFP, 20% of grants are criminal, 90% of IFP filings are criminal. Then assuming random selection about half the criminal cases will be IFP. So if the number of IFP filings halves (between 07 and 23) then that shows up as a 25% drop in criminal cases, about half of what we're seeing here.
I'm obviously making a lot of dodgy assumptions, that was just my train of thought. Your instinct here is probably right.
This harks back to my comment above. Given the current composition of the court, I am not at all surprised to see a decline in IFP cert filings, as that's how the vast majority of criminal / habeas cases come to the Supreme Court.
I am a criminal defense appellate attorney and I found this a very interesting article.
Does your data show any change in which party is seeking cert? You may have touched on this somewhat in the article, but with the Court's composition being what it is, there is little expectation that in most cases, Supreme Court taking the case would benefit your client. And unlike the Government (or its state vis-a-vis), individual practitioners cannot prioritize institutional interests over the best interests of the client.
It is also great that you mentioned the Suipreme Court's AEDPA jurisprudence. It has read the statute, I think, far broader than originally billed and it more or less wrote fed habeas relief out of existence (unless you have a rare case where you can convince the federal habeas court that there is no state merits adjudication to defer to). And it also pushes anything that smells like a new issue into the direct appeal / cert scenario. And if those aren't granted either, there is little recourse for the defendants.
I enjoy these deep dives into the Court’s docket. I always learn something.
This is a great observation. But does this mean Gorsuch was onto something when he told attorneys to file more appeals?
You dismissed his remarks by pointing out that the decline in appeals was entirely among IFP cases and not paid cases. But of course, criminal and habeas cases are disproportionately IFP! Maybe the drop in cert grants is mostly explained by these cases, as both your data and Gorsuch's remarks seem to suggest.
IFP cases are disproportionately criminal and habeas cases, but I *don't* think the reverse is true. I'd have to look, but my anecdotal sense is that, both today and over the relevant time periods, a significant *majority* of the criminal/habeas cases that the Court has taken have been from the "paid" docket. Just looking at this term, for instance, four of the five "CFYs" (federal criminal appeals) on the docket thus far are paid.
Ah yes, I meant cases filed not cases granted.
Just doing some *super* back-of-the-envelope math. Say 10% of grants are IFP, 20% of grants are criminal, 90% of IFP filings are criminal. Then assuming random selection about half the criminal cases will be IFP. So if the number of IFP filings halves (between 07 and 23) then that shows up as a 25% drop in criminal cases, about half of what we're seeing here.
I'm obviously making a lot of dodgy assumptions, that was just my train of thought. Your instinct here is probably right.
This harks back to my comment above. Given the current composition of the court, I am not at all surprised to see a decline in IFP cert filings, as that's how the vast majority of criminal / habeas cases come to the Supreme Court.
I am a criminal defense appellate attorney and I found this a very interesting article.
Does your data show any change in which party is seeking cert? You may have touched on this somewhat in the article, but with the Court's composition being what it is, there is little expectation that in most cases, Supreme Court taking the case would benefit your client. And unlike the Government (or its state vis-a-vis), individual practitioners cannot prioritize institutional interests over the best interests of the client.
It is also great that you mentioned the Suipreme Court's AEDPA jurisprudence. It has read the statute, I think, far broader than originally billed and it more or less wrote fed habeas relief out of existence (unless you have a rare case where you can convince the federal habeas court that there is no state merits adjudication to defer to). And it also pushes anything that smells like a new issue into the direct appeal / cert scenario. And if those aren't granted either, there is little recourse for the defendants.