SCOTUS Advocates Grumble at Proposed Rules to Shorten Filings
“I appreciate the court's efforts to encourage succinct and streamlined briefs. But 4,500 words for a merits reply brief—wow, that is short!” one veteran advocate in Big Law says.
November 05, 2018 at 11:47 AM
5 minute read
The proposed Supreme Court rules changes announced on Nov. 1 came as an unpleasant shock to many court advocates.
The biggest changes were significant cuts in the word limits on merits briefs—from 15,000 to 13,000 words—as well as reply briefs and amicus briefs. And the most unpopular of these seems to be trimming reply briefs from 6,000 words to 4,500.
Shrinking the word counts should not have been much of a surprise. Federal appeals courts made similar trims not long ago, and at the Supreme Court level, they've probably been in the works for a long time. It is easily traceable to Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who beefs about overly long briefs whenever he can.
As far back as 2007, Roberts famously told legal writing expert Bryan Garner, “I have yet to put down a brief and say, 'I wish that had been longer.'” And, as recently as Oct. 16, Roberts said this in a public conversation at the University of Minnesota Law School:
“Our word limits work out to about 50 pages a brief, and you pick up a brief's that's 50 pages long, you pick up the next brief and it's 50 pages long, pick up the next brief and it's 50 pages, 50 pages, and [then] it's 35 pages. Whoa! You stop, and the first thing you do is look at the cover and see who the lawyer is, and you say, 'I like her.' The next thing you do is you think and realize, she must have a lot of confidence in her arguments, because she gets them in in 35 pages and doesn't need the extra pages. It's invariably not only shorter, but better-written.”
Those who don't like the new rules have until Nov. 30 to voice their views in writing to the clerk of the court. Based on our own survey of practitioners, as well as comments on social media, we're betting that the rule that will get the most pushback is the one slashing 1,500 words from reply briefs.
Why reply briefs? Those are the briefs filed by the appellant after the appellee has picked apart his or her arguments. Justices trying to decide which of two polar opposite analyses is correct often turn to the reply briefs, so seasoned advocates put a lot of time into them. Not only is it the “sole chance to respond to the appellee's argument, you get the last word,” according to the book “Advanced Appellate Advocacy.”
Some of the commentary thus far:
➤➤ “I appreciate the court's efforts to encourage succinct and streamlined briefs. But 4,500 words for a merits reply brief—wow, that is short!” —Nicole Saharsky, partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
➤➤ “The reduction in the length of reply briefs is more drastic, proportionally, than the reduction in the length of opening briefs. Even a 1,000-word cut in reply briefs would have been proportionally more than the cut in opening briefs. I'm surprised that the court cut so deeply, but I assume that something in the Justices' experience drove the change.” —Roy Englert Jr., partner at Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber.
➤➤ “It's reasonable for #SCOTUS to shorten the parties' main briefs (2,000 words is a bit much tho). But most courts typically make reply briefs 1/2 the length of the principal brief, & it's always been substantially less in #SCOTUS. Reply briefs there are a tight squeeze even now.” —John Elwood, partner at Vinson & Elkins, in a tweet.
➤➤ Kannon Shanmugam, who leads the Williams & Connolly appellate practice, wrote on Twitter:
The sum total of my thoughts on word limits: I'm happy to comply with whatever limits a court thinks is appropriate.https://t.co/bibr5ro6zZ
— Kannon Shanmugam (@KannonShanmugam) November 5, 2018
➤➤ “The cut from 15,000 to 13,000 for principal briefs makes sense, but from 6,000 to 4,500 on reply briefs will be brutal for #AppellateTwitter.” —Sean Marotta, senior associate at Hogan Lovells, in a tweet.
➤➤ “This is the highest court in the land, deciding just a few dozen of the most important cases each year, and it's fussing about word counts?” —Peter Prows, managing partner at Briscoe Ivester & Bazel, in a tweet.
Read more:
John Roberts Talks Kavanaugh, the Court's Shrinking Docket and 'Legally Blonde'
Supreme Court Brief: Tips for Supreme Court Advocates
Unlike Gorsuch, Kavanaugh Jumps Into SCOTUS Cert Pool
Kagan Says Repeat Players at SCOTUS 'Know What It Is We Like'
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Files Appeal to DC Circuit Aiming to Intervene in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readDC Circuit Revives Firefighters' Religious Freedom Litigation in Facial Hair Policy Row
3 minute readJudges Split Over Whether Indigent Prisoners Bringing Suit Must Each Pay Filing Fee
4th Circuit Upholds Virginia Law Restricting Online Court Records Access
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250