US Supreme Court Is Urged to Suspend Paper Filing Requirement
Lawyers across firms have advised the Supreme Court about the impact the coronavirus pandemic is posing on practical things such as delivering paper copies.
April 10, 2020 at 02:20 PM
5 minute read
In 2014, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. suggested that electronic filing at the high court, once it had been operating effectively for some time, would become the official means of filing documents. After nearly three years in operation, neither e-filing nor even a pandemic has dislodged paper copies as the official filing by lawyers.
The nation's public health crisis has triggered concerns among some high court advocates about the paper copy filing requirement, which may require trips to the post office or the printer at a time when stay-at-home orders govern most states. One advocate is urging the court, in a letter to clerk Scott Harris, to consider adopting electronic filing as the official filing and to suspend the paper copy requirement for those filers who are able to submit documents by e-filing.
"When you have a stay-at-home order, would going to the printer or copy place be considered essential business?" asked attorney Elaine Mittleman of Falls Church, Virginia. "I'm sure they could say it is. But on the other hand, if you can simply send it by email, then no, it's not."
A representative for the U.S. Supreme Court did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday. Mittleman said Harris has not responded to her request.
Lawyers across firms have advised the Supreme Court in filings about the impact the pandemic is posing on practical things such as delivering paper copies. In some instances, lawyers in pending cases have asked for more time to file certain pleadings.
"This additional time is warranted because we anticipate that COVID-19 will lead to logistical challenges in printing the reply and delivering it to the court. Counsel for respondent has no objection to this request," Mark Stancil, a Willkie Farr & Gallagher appellate partner, recently told the justices.
Stancil said his request for additional time was made out of deference to the printer to ensure that the printer wasn't put in a time squeeze.
"I'm fine with the paper [requirement] given the court's very accommodating response to the logistical difficulties now," Stancil told The National Law Journal. "I'm old enough to appreciate the paper. I'm in my home office and have several feet of Supreme Court filings in different colored covers."
At the Justice Department, the U.S. solicitor general's office has sought more time from the court to file paper copies. The government recently asked for, and received, a four-day extension to file paper pleadings in the case Bryant v. United States.
"This short extension is necessary because, in light of COVID-19, this office is endeavoring to minimize risks to the health and safety of our personnel responsible for the filing and service of paper copies of court documents by reducing the number of days each week on which the filing and service of such documents are necessary and on which those personnel must report to work in person," Noel Francisco, the solicitor general, told the court.
Mittleman noted that the court sends an email notification that an electronic filing record has been submitted. But the notification also states that the petition filed "will be reviewed once the hard copy is received." There may be a lapse of several days between the e-filing submission and the review—and docketing—of the hard copy.
"They've added e-filing but they're still functioning like the paper submitted," she said. "I wouldn't have paid any attention absent this crisis. It just made me realize how absurd this is."
The court recently urged lawyers to send paper copies via mail or commercial carrier instead of hand delivery. Hand-delivered copies will be sent "offsite for screening before being delivered to the Clerk's Office," the court said.
Federal trial and appellate courts across the country are grappling with administrative process matters amid the virus pandemic. Many courts have postponed hearings and trials, and some courts are embracing video technology to conduct proceedings.
Just down the road, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on April 1 said it was suspending its requirement that lawyers file paper copies.
"For briefs and appendices that are filed electronically, the requirement to file paper copies is deferred pending further order of the court. When feasible, parties may continue to submit paper copies in the normal course," the court said in an advisory.
The Supreme Court, which has canceled March and April oral arguments, is weighing options about how to proceed in the coming weeks.
"The court will consider rescheduling some cases from the March and April sessions before the end of the term, if circumstances permit in light of public health and safety guidance at that time," the court said in a statement April 3. "The court will consider a range of scheduling options and other alternatives if arguments cannot be held in the courtroom before the end of the term."
The term traditionally ends in June each year.
Read more:
SCOTUS, Canceling More Arguments, Says 'Other Alternatives' Are on the Table
New Normal Sets In for White-Collar Lawyers in the Virus Era
How the Pandemic Will Impact the Trump-Backed Lawsuit Against Obamacare
For Supreme Court Advocates, Virus-Era Delays Pose 'Stay Fresh' Challenge
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 All'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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