The Court’s Argument Calendar

By Tom Goldstein
on Jul 11, 2005 at 1:07 pm

The Supreme Court almost always hears cases on a “first come, first served” basis. The cases are slated for argument based on when the briefing will be concluded.

I sometimes wonder whether the Court’s jurisprudence would benefit if arguments were scheduled based on the cases’ subject matter. Intuitively, it seems that the Court would do a better job of creating a coherent body of law if it was considering related cases essentially in tandem. Of course, nothing prevents the Justices from recognizing the relationship between two cases argued, for example, two months apart. But the process of preparing for the cases simultaneously, and then discussing them together at Conference, would seem to add value.

Based on a quick review of the granted cases for the October Term 2005, it looks like there are reasonably close parallels between at least four sets of cases. Here are the ones that I noticed. The links are to the Questions Presented, and I’ve included in a parenthetical the sitting in which the cases will be argued under the traditional “first come, first served” system for scheduling arguments:

Exemptions from the federal drug laws: No. 04-623, Oregon (Oct); No. 04-1084, O’Centro (Nov)
Federal Tort Claims Act: No. 04-759, Olson (Oct); No. 04-848, Dolan (Nov); No. 04-1332, Will (Dec)
Death penalty sentencing: No. 04-980, Sanders (Nov); No. 04-928, Guzek (Nov); No. 04-1170, Marsh (Dec)
State sovereign immunity: No. 04-885, Katz (Nov); Nos. 04-1202 & -2346, Goodman (Dec)