Oral arguments are taking forever. Supreme Court justices have had enough

Oral arguments are taking forever. Supreme Court justices have had enough

Justice frustrations mount over extended sessions

Oral arguments are taking forever Supreme – Supreme Court justices, much like skilled attorneys, have long been known for their ability to debate on a wide range of topics. Yet, recent public expressions of discontent reveal a growing unease with the duration of oral argument sessions. Chief Justice John Roberts, during a speech at a judicial conference in Pennsylvania, lamented the time spent in these proceedings, stating that they had become “way too long.” He pledged to examine the issue over the summer, signaling a possible shift in the court’s approach. Similarly, Justice Samuel Alito, in a separate appearance in Texas, criticized the extended format, noting that “too much speechifying” had taken place. According to SCOTUSblog, he argued that the sessions lacked sufficient depth, with “too little asking real questions.”

“Way too long,” Chief Justice John Roberts recently remarked at a gathering of judges and legal professionals in Pennsylvania. “I’ve vowed to look into it during the summer.”

The evolving role of oral arguments

While legal scholars have long viewed oral arguments as secondary to written opinions, they remain a critical platform for justices to challenge each other’s reasoning. This dynamic often shapes the final rulings, even if the formal proceedings themselves are not decisive. The process has also become a window for the public, offering insight into how the nine most influential figures in Washington navigate complex cases with national stakes. Since the pandemic, these debates have been broadcast live, amplifying their visibility. However, the extended timeframes have raised concerns about efficiency and the court’s image.

Pandemic disruptions and format compromises

The shift to virtual arguments during the pandemic altered the rhythm of court proceedings. Justice-advocates noted that justices began questioning in order of seniority, a departure from the traditional “hot bench” style. When the court resumed in-person sessions in 2021, tensions emerged over whether to maintain this structured approach or revert to the pre-pandemic, more fluid format. A middle ground was established: the first segment of each argument followed the familiar hot bench style, while the second round adopted a seriatim format, allowing justices to ask questions individually. This compromise, however, has introduced challenges in adhering to time limits.

Historically, oral arguments were tightly regulated, with former Chief Justice William Rehnquist renowned for his strict adherence to timekeeping. He would occasionally interrupt advocates mid-sentence to enforce brevity. Today, the court schedules 60-minute sessions, but the average length has risen to nearly 90 minutes in the current term, as revealed by a CNN analysis. This increase follows the 2020 term, when remote arguments led to shorter durations. The most prolonged session of the year, nearly three hours, centered on President Donald Trump’s global tariff policies. Though the case involved two appeals, the court’s decision to strike down the tariffs overshadowed the debate over time limits.

“Too much speechifying,” Justice Samuel Alito said in Texas. “There’s too little asking real questions.”

The liberal justices’ influence

Some justices have embraced the extended format, particularly those on the liberal side of the court. Members of the three-justice liberal bloc, operating in an environment where conservatives hold a six-justice supermajority, often take the lead in verbal exchanges. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the most senior liberal, averaged over six minutes of speaking per argument in the current term, according to a study by Adam Feldman of Empirical SCOTUS and political science professor Jake Truscott. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, known for her articulate and thorough approach, has also contributed to the lengthened sessions. This dynamic has led to speculation that shortening the time limits could disproportionately affect the liberal wing, given their more verbose participation.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who once gained notoriety for rarely speaking during arguments, has expressed no objections to the extended format. In a recent address at a Miami-based conference, he humorously remarked, “The current approach may run a bit long, but you cannot say you have not had a chance to say your piece.” Thomas added, “I don’t play golf. I don’t play cards. I don’t hang out. So, I can sit there all day,” referring to the opportunity to engage in lengthy discussions without distraction. His comments highlight the varied perspectives within the court on the value of time spent in oral arguments.

Public perception and judicial legitimacy

For the general public, these sessions serve as a rare opportunity to observe the decision-making process of the nation’s highest court. However, the prolonged nature of the arguments has sparked debates about their impact on the court’s perceived efficiency. Tonja Jacobi, a law professor at Emory University, emphasized that the legitimacy of the court depends on the clarity and thoroughness of its proceedings. “It’s very important for the court’s legitimacy,” she said. “It can help reassure people that at least some of this is law.”

The trend of extended arguments reflects broader changes in the court’s culture. With justices increasingly prioritizing dialogue over brevity, the format has evolved to accommodate more nuanced exchanges. Yet, this shift raises questions about whether the time invested is yielding proportionate results. Critics argue that the current system allows for excessive back-and-forth, while supporters contend that the additional time fosters deeper analysis and accountability. The balance between thoroughness and efficiency remains a central issue in shaping the court’s future operations.

Resolving the time dilemma

As the court continues to grapple with the extended format, it faces a pivotal challenge: maintaining the quality of deliberation without compromising public trust. The debate over time limits has become a microcosm of the larger ideological divide within the court. While conservatives like Roberts and Alito advocate for stricter adherence to schedules, liberals like Sotomayor and Jackson argue that the extra time is essential for robust discussion. The compromise in place since 2021—a blend of free-form and structured questioning—may be the best solution so far, but it is not without its drawbacks.

The current term’s arguments, averaging just under 90 minutes, underscore the complexity of this issue. While the court has traditionally allowed for flexibility, the cumulative effect of extended sessions has left some justices visibly frustrated. This tension is evident in the rhetorical exchanges between justices, such as the recent sparring between Alito and Kagan. Their heated interactions, though informal, highlight the stakes involved in how the court structures its proceedings. As the term progresses, the question of whether to shorten the sessions or maintain the status quo will likely remain a topic of discussion, influencing not only the court’s internal dynamics but also its relationship with the public it serves.