Minnesota Law Review

Why Supreme Court Justices Should Ride Circuit Again

The practice of Supreme Court Justices circuit riding is as old as the federal judiciary itself and has a storied history that spans the first 120 years of this nation’s history. Yet the practice is also one of the least explored aspects of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and has been given little attention in scholarly literature.

In addition to exploring its history, this Article proposes circuit riding renewal by requiring Supreme Court Justices to spend at least one week per year hearing cases on the United States Courts of Appeals. As the Article explains, many of the reasons favoring abolition of the practice, such as the Supreme Court’s crushing caseload during the late nineteenth century and the dangers and delays associated with transcontinental travel, are no longer concerns for today’s Justices. Furthermore, circuit riding would confer a number of important benefits on modern Justices, including exposing them to a wider array of legal issues, the laws of various states, and the difficulties faced by the lower courts in implementing the Supreme Court’s sweeping (and sometimes confounding) rulings. Equally important, having the Justices perform work on the circuit courts is both reasonable and workable, and closely matches the competencies of the Justices to the courts on which they would sit. This Article argues that it is time to renew an important component of the framers’ vision for a vital and independent judiciary: the practice of circuit riding.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1] The Court overturned the D.C. [...]