Each fall, the U.S. Supreme Court begins a new term that can shape constitutional law, public policy and everyday life across the country. From deciding which cases to hear to issuing opinions that influence future legal decisions, the Court's work often extends far beyond the courtroom. Rachael Houston, assistant professor of political science, and Matthew Montgomery, associate professor of political science, explain how the Supreme Court selects cases, why oral arguments matter and what to watch as the new term gets underway. 

What makes a case one that the Supreme Court decides to hear, and why are those decisions so selective?  

Houston: The Court often grants review when there is a circuit split or disagreement among lower federal courts about how to interpret the law or the Constitution. It may also take cases when lower courts repeatedly encounter an important legal question without clear Supreme Court guidance or when they are applying existing precedent incorrectly or inconsistently, which gives the justices a chance to clarify, reaffirm or overturn prior decisions. The Court also takes cases involving questions of national importance, meaning issues that affect many people or the operation of government. It is also more likely to take a case when the U.S. Solicitor General recommends review, signaling that the federal government believes the case warrants the Court’s attention.  

At least four of the nine justices must vote to hear a case. We know more about this process from Justice Harry Blackmun’s papers. Blackmun served from 1970 to 1994, and his papers include notes documenting the Court’s case-selection process. His notes indicate that the justices would deliberate over roughly 800 petitions each term, narrowing that pool to the cases they ultimately agreed to consider for review (around 100 to 150 cases per term). Today, the Court receives 5,000 to 6,000 petitions each term, and only about 60 to 70 cases are scheduled for oral argument. This illustrates just how selective the Court has become. 

For those who don't closely follow the Supreme Court, what should they know about the Court's process as a new term begins?  

Montgomery: The Court’s year runs on a predictable calendar, beginning in late September as the justices prepare for the new term and moving into oral arguments in October. Most cases are decided by the end of June, with the most controversial ones often coming last. 

The more important thing to know is that most of the work happens out of public view, unlike the two elected branches. By the time a case is argued, the justices and their clerks have already read hundreds of pages of briefs. They vote privately a few days after argument, assign the opinion and then circulate drafts for weeks or months. The argument and the final opinion are the small visible slice of a much longer process. 

Recently, the Court has leaned much more heavily on the “shadow docket,” or emergency docket. Here the Court acts quickly, often without argument and sometimes without much explanation. Keep an eye on this pathway for judicial decisions. 

How should the Justices balance constitutional language written centuries ago with legal questions involving modern society?  

Montgomery: How should they? That is definitely up to each of us to decide, but historically, the justices would proclaim a judicial philosophy, or how they interpret these words, and then stick to that interpretation. Some things do not require much interpretation: the Constitution declares a president must be at least 35 years old, which is cut and dry. Other parts are written in broad terms, like unreasonable searches or the meaning of commerce. Those phrases were general when they were written, and applying them to cell phones, social media or artificial intelligence is tricky. 

Some justices emphasize the original plain meaning of the text and look for historical analogies. Others read the same language as setting out principles and give more weight to precedent and practical consequences. Both camps insist they are being faithful to the document, but often they are finding a way to bend their chosen philosophy to decide a case to fit their personal preferences. 

What role do oral arguments play in the Supreme Court's decision-making process, and what can or can’t they tell us about how a case might ultimately be decided?  

Houston: Before argument, the justices and their clerks have already read the parties’ briefs and amicus briefs filed by interest groups, government bodies and legal scholars. Oral arguments give the justices an opportunity to ask questions, clarify points raised in the briefs, and test the implications of each side’s arguments. Justices may challenge attorneys’ positions, explore hypothetical scenarios and play devil’s advocate to better understand the consequences of ruling for or against a particular side. They can also respond to and build upon one another’s questions. Political science research suggests that oral arguments can influence the justices’ decision-making, both through attorneys’ arguments and through their interactions with one another. 

For the public, oral arguments provide a rare window into the Court’s decision-making process. Oral arguments are one of the few stages of the Court’s decision-making process that the public can observe as they happen. The other major window into the Court’s reasoning comes after the fact, through the written opinions the justices issue. Oral arguments can give us a sense of the questions and concerns on the justices’ minds, and experts often use their questioning to predict how they might vote. However, they do not always predict the Court’s final decision. Thus, oral arguments offer useful insight but not complete certainty about the Court’s rulings. 

How could a major Supreme Court ruling affect public debate even beyond the specific law being challenged?  

Houston: Oftentimes, the public understands Supreme Court cases not just in terms of the specific law being challenged, but in terms of the broader implications of the Court’s decision. This is especially true when cases involve salient or polarizing issues. People may ask, “What does this mean for laws like this in my state?” or “Could this affect policies in my community?” For example, in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), the Court considered the federal government’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Although the case focused on a specific environmental regulation, the Court’s decision was viewed more broadly as potentially affecting the government’s ability to regulate climate change and other issues through federal agencies. As a result, the ruling had implications beyond the particular regulation before the Court and became part of a larger public debate about environmental policy, federal power and the authority of government agencies. 

What do the anticipated cases suggest about the broader challenge of balancing individual freedoms with government responsibilities?  

Montgomery: As with every term, the upcoming Supreme Court docket includes several major cases. The Court will tackle a Second Amendment challenge to Cook County's ban on AR-15 rifles, where the lower court held that such weapons are OK for the county to restrict. In another case out of Colorado, a Catholic preschool says they were shut out of a state-funded preschool program because of their religious beliefs, while the state says it was enforcing rules meant to keep the program open to every family. An Arizona case sets voter registration access against a state's interest in verifying citizenship. 

In each case, both sides believe they are protecting something essential, and the losing side rarely walks away persuaded by the Court’s decision. Instead, they may pursue another legal avenue or wait for the composition of the Supreme Court to change, hoping that new justices will be more sympathetic to their position.