Document Type
Article
Publication Date
10-2018
Journal Title
Scribes Journal of Legal Writing
ISSN
1049-5177
Abstract
The role of the judiciary, Chief Justice Marshall famously advised, is “to say what the law is.” Yet, how often do the justices issue a written opinion that ordinary Americans can understand? The Supreme Court increasingly issues lengthy and complex opinions, often containing multiple concurring and dissenting opinions. These opinions can be as confusing as they are verbose.
“To Say What the Law Is Succinctly: A Brief Proposal,” analyzes the justices’ legal writing. Are the justices effective in saying what the law is? Insufficient attention has been devoted to evaluating the justices’ writing and their efficacy at communicating the law. Five of the eleven longest opinions in Supreme Court history belong to the Roberts’ Court.
After comparing the length of modern Court opinions to Shakespeare and other literary works, the article concludes with a proposal for brevity. I propose the justices voluntarily accept to limit all majority opinions to 9,000 words (the same word limit for petitions for certiorari) and concurring and dissenting opinions to 3,000 words (the limit for motions for rehearing).
In the spirit of my own proposal, this article comes in below 9,000 words.
First Page
49
Last Page
70
Num Pages
22
Volume Number
18
Publisher
American Society of Writers on Legal Subjects
Recommended Citation
Meg Penrose,
Enough Said: A Proposal for Shortening Supreme Court Opinions,
18
Scribes J. Leg. Writing
49
(2018).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/1333