The Circuit Splits Are Out There—and the Court Should Decide Them
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at info@fedsoc.org.
The Supreme Court just isn’t as busy as it used to be. In the early 1980s, the Court decided more than 150 cases per year. In its 2014-2015 term, the Court decided 76 cases, continuing a trend that has long perplexed practitioners, commentators and scholars. On June 29, 2012, at the District of Columbia Circuit judicial conference, Chief Justice John Roberts responded to a question about the Court’s declining docket by stating that the Court could hear “100 cases without any stress or strain, but the cases just aren’t there.”
Is it true that the cases “just aren’t there”? In an essay published in the August issue of Engage, I provide a partial survey of consequential circuit splits that leave the rights of millions hanging in the balance—and which the Supreme Court has refused to resolve. The circuits are divided over whether the occupational speech of tour guides, consultants, therapists, and others who earn their living primarily through speaking is protected by the First Amendment; whether a statute that is rational when passed can be challenged as irrational at a later date if circumstances change; whether naked economic protectionism is constitutionally legitimate; and whether the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry a handgun outside the home, among other constitutional questions.
These are not questions of interest only to constitutional law aficionados. Questions about whether naked wealth transfers merit more than a judicial rubber stamp or whether the price of pursuing a vocation is the abandonment of one’s right to speak freely are pressing and fundamental—and certainly worthy of the attention of a Court that (to hear the Chief Justice tell it) could easily hear some thirty additional cases. It is high time to subject the Court’s inaction to exacting scrutiny.
Associate Professor, Northern Illinois University
Evan Bernick joined the NIU Law faculty in 2021. He teaches courses in constitutional law, criminal law, criminal procedure, administrative law and legislation.
From 2020 to 2021, Professor Bernick was a visiting professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and the executive director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. Before that, he served as a clerk to Judge Diane S. Sykes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. From April 2017 to April 2019, he was a visiting lecturer at Georgetown and a resident fellow of the Center for the Constitution.
His scholarship covers a range of topics, from constitutional law, to philosophy of law, to social movements, to law enforcement. He has published with the Georgetown Law Journal, the Notre Dame Law Review, the William and Mary Law Review and the George Mason Law Review, among other journals. His book, The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit (2021), with Randy E. Barnett, was published by Harvard University Press under its Belknap imprint "for books of long-lasting importance, superior in scholarship and physical production, chosen whether or not they might be profitable."
Professor Bernick received his bachelor's degree in 2008 from the University of Chicago, where he studied philosophy and graduated with honors. He received his juris doctorate in 2011 from the University of Chicago Law School.