Once again it's time to raise a blunt question about the Supreme Court: Are its nine members overpaid?

If the court's production may be fairly measured by the number of signed opinions the justices write, the answer is equally blunt: Yes, they're overpaid. By the time the current term ends in late June, the court will have produced only 75 signed opinions.With the exception of the 1993 term, which saw 70 such opinions, that will be the lowest output in this century. On average, each justice will have written only eight opinions. That is not what you would call heavy lifting.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist draws a salary of $171,500. Each of the associate justices is paid $164,100. If we count only the justices' salaries, each of the 75 opinions will cost the taxpayers $19,790. Thus far in the term we have had 21 signed opinions. Not one of them has earned its advance.

To be sure, it is not altogether fair to gauge the high court solely by the publication of signed opinions. In one fashion or another, the justices will dispose of roughly 7,000 petitions for review every year. About 5,000 of these will be cases filed "in forma pauperis" by prisoners who pay no filing fees. The other 2,000 will be regular civil and criminal cases.

In practice, 90 percent of the petitions never get beyond the justices' clerks. They know meritless appeals when they see them. The clerks also prepare drafts of opinions for their justices and dig out precedents to support them. A fully staffed law library provides a mountain of material for research.

What it comes down to, for each of the justices, is the final editing and rewriting of maybe 1,000 words a week over a period of nine months. Lyle Denniston, dean of the court's press corps, will write three times as much, and his opinions will be expressed with greater clarity and style.

What accounts for the court's meager output? It is not as if the court had a meager crop of petitions to choose from. The Supremes have an obligation to settle conflicts among the 13 federal circuits. Such conflicts constantly arise. Only a relative handful make it to formal review.

The result is to leave many questions of both statutory and constitutional law in a kind of limbo. A provision of the Tax Code may be interpreted in one way in the 2nd Circuit, and in the opposite way in the 6th Circuit. This means one law for New York, another law in Tennessee. Why doesn't the Supreme Court take an appropriate case and settle the matter finally? No one ever explains.

In recent months, the court has refused to hear intercircuit conflicts on Medicare and securities law. In a case involving Stuckeys restaurants, the court refused to look at conflicts under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In a case involving Kmart, the court passed up an opportunity to clear up a procedural issue on which four circuits have gone one way, the 10th Circuit another way.

Last month the court refused to hear Keat v. Chavez, involving a homeowner killed by a police officer who had illegally entered the house. The case raised an important question of an officer's immunity. Review denied.

View Comments

In Florida v. McLeod, the 4th Circuit dealt with a recurring question under the Fourth Amendment: In what circumstances may a police officer use a sniffing dog for a warrantless search? Review denied.

The court should have taken the case of Hans Hoeck, who sued the city of Portland, Ore., after the city demolished a six-story building he was about to renovate. The property had been abandoned, but it was no danger to public health or public safety. Was this a "taking" of private property for public use without payment of just compensation? Review denied.

A half dozen other cases dealt with dismissals or transfers of public employees in retaliation for political activity. They all went in the round file.

Over a recent period of 10 years, from 1983 through 1992, the court disposed of 152 cases a year by signed opinions; this term, half as many. What's inhibiting the Supremes? One hesitates to call them loafers, but if the robe fits, they can put it on.

Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.