The Serious Decline in Petitions Before the Supreme Court

Key Takeaways

• 2024‑25 term saw 3,856 cert petitions, half filed IFP.
• IFP filings fell 65% since 2006‑07, from 7,132 to 2,527.
• Paid petitions declined only 23% over same period.
• PLRA and AEDPA reforms sharply reduced prisoner lawsuits.
• Court’s tighter “Martin” bans further restrict repeat indigent filers.

Pulse Analysis

The Supreme Court’s certiorari pipeline has contracted dramatically over the past two decades. Chief Justice Roberts’ 2024‑25 year‑end report records just 3,856 petitions, a drop of more than half from the 8,857 filed in 2006‑07. The decline is not uniform: more than 2,500 of the recent filings were submitted in forma pauperis (IFP), while paid petitions number just 1,329. Since the early 2010s the total has slipped below 5,000, and the IFP docket now accounts for roughly two‑thirds of all submissions.

Several structural forces explain the plunge. The 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act raised filing fees, capped attorney fees and introduced a three‑strike bar, curbing the flood of inmate civil‑rights suits that once fed the IFP stream. The 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act added a one‑year limitation and near‑total ban on successive habeas petitions, further throttling prisoner access. Demographically, the U.S. incarceration rate peaked in 2008 and has since fallen, shrinking the pool of potential petitioners. Meanwhile, the Court’s own “Martin” doctrine has expanded, permanently barring repeat IFP filers and raising the threshold for indigent access.

The shrinking docket carries both procedural and substantive consequences. With fewer low‑merit petitions, clerks can screen cases more aggressively, potentially raising the bar for a petition to reach the justices’ discuss list. Yet the reduction also narrows the Court’s exposure to grassroots constitutional grievances, especially those raised by prisoners who lack resources. As filing costs for paid petitions can exceed $100,000, litigants may forego Supreme Court review altogether, concentrating cases in the hands of elite counsel. Policymakers and scholars will watch whether the trend signals greater efficiency or a growing justice gap.