The
enclosed
report
represents
the
culmination
of
a
ten-month
effort
to
provide
summary
statistics
and
corresponding
analysis
for
the
Supreme
Court’s
2024
Term
(October
2024
to
June
2025),
which
we
hope
to
replicate
for
future
terms.
It
is
intended
to
serve
principally
as
an
appendix
for
the SCOTUSblog
Statpack with
additional
metrics
related
to
oral
arguments
and
the
Court’s
docket.
Our
goal
was
to
provide
a
comprehensive
overview
of
the
term
while
recognizing
that
much
of
what
we
offer
remains
surface-level
data.
In
recent
years,
some
have
taken
exception
to
how
data
such
as
these
are
used,
particularly
as
it
relates
to
drawing
generalizable
claims
of
the
Court
and
its
Justices.
We
would
like
to
take
the
time
to
state
our
position
on
these
concerns:
First,
we
fully
recognize
that
our
data
provides
only
surface-level
inferences.
As
many
have
pointed
out,
the
Court
retains
considerable
discretion
with
respect
to
the
size
and
scope
of
its
docket.
Indeed,
a
considerable
majority
of
the
Court’s
decision-making
is
determining
which
appeals
will
not
receive
review,
rather
than
what
will.
It
is
not
lost
on
us
that
the
population
of
orally
argued
and
decided
cases
in
the
2024
term
are
not
fully
emblematic
of
the
Court’s
broader
decision-making.
While
we
do
provide
statistics
on
the
docket
more
generally,
we
advise
pursuing
additional
scholarship
focusing
on
this
area.
Second,
our
summary
analyses
do
not
make
distinctions
between
cases
of
varying
importance
to
the
national
discourse.
Not
because
we
fail
to
recognize
that
these
distinctions
obviously
exist,
but
because
our
goal
is
to
provide
an
overview
of
the
Justices’
most
observable
decision-making
behaviors
–
irrespective
of
the
broader
importance
some
of
these
decisions
may
have
compared
to
others.
In
short,
they
are
numbers
–
nothing
more,
nothing
less.
There
is
no
underlying
agenda
in
our
decision
to
present
topline
statistics.
Finally,
we
recognize
that
these
data
do
not
belong
to
us
in
perpetuity.
Once
we
have
published
our
report,
any
person,
outlet,
or
entity
are
free
to
use
them
–
just
as
we
have
been
facilitating
open
access
to
our
data
throughout
the
term.
Nonetheless,
we
ask
those
who
read
our
report
to
be
conscientious
of
the
fact
that
we
cannot
control
–
nor
do
we
particularly
wish
to
control
–
how
they
are
used.
The
Supreme
Court
retains
special
significance
in
our
national
discourse,
and
its
decisions
can
surely
draw
considerable
divisions
among
observers.
Some
readers
may
take
exception
to
how
others
choose
to
interpret
these
data.
We
ask
that
you
not
hold
it
against
us.
We
would
like
to
give
special
thanks
to
Vikram
Narasimhan,
Zachary
Shemtob,
Sarah
Isgur,
Kelsey
Dallas,
and
all
those
who
offered
guidance
and
research
assistance
in
the
development
of
this
report.
– Adam
Feldman (J.D.,
Ph.D.); Jake
S.
Truscott (Ph.D.)
Statpack
Extended
Ot24
10.5MB
∙
PDF
file
How
To
Accurately
Interpret
Unanimity
In
Supreme
Court
Decision
341KB
∙
PDF
file
Subscribe
for
more.
Additional
deep
dives
for
paid
subscribers.
Please
share
with
others.
Adam
Feldman
runs
the
litigation
consulting
company
Optimized
Legal
Solutions
LLC.
Check
out
more
of
his
writing
at Legalytics and Empirical
SCOTUS.
For
more
information,
write
Adam
at [email protected]. Find
him
on
Twitter: @AdamSFeldman.
Kathryn
