The Supreme Court’s “long conference” serves as an annual preparatory meeting of the justices, traditionally taking place at the end of September. This year’s session was scheduled for September 29th. The gathering serves as a critical juncture, allowing the justices to review a backlog of petitions for review accumulated during the summer recess, marking the unofficial beginning of the new term. The term officially commences by law on the first Monday in October, as mandated here.
This “long conference” is a legacy dating back to the early 1970s, suggesting a continuity of administrative traditions within the Court. Former Justice Blackmun advocated for positioning this meeting prior to the first Monday of October, so oral arguments could start appropriately at the term’s onset.
Legal professionals may find it useful to understand the inner workings of this conference. The event is characterized by a significant parsing of approximately 2,000 petitions collected since the last court session on June 26. These petitions are initially sifted through by law clerks from the chambers of seven of the nine justices—excluding Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch—who participate in a collaborative effort known as the “cert pool.”
Designed as a labor-efficient mechanism, one clerk from participating justices’ chambers drafts a memo summarizing the case, eventually making a recommendation concerning whether the justices should further consider the case. This memo is then shared across the chambers of other participating justices. Such procedural insights highlight the systematic approach adopted to ensure efficiency in determining which cases will be further discussed.
The decision-making process culminates in discussions during the conference resulting in the creation of a “discuss list.” If a petition does not make this list, it is automatically declined. The justices release lists of granted cases shortly after, kicking off the briefing process to prepare cases for arguments, potentially by January.
Interestingly, the data suggests that petitions considered during the long conference face longer odds. A study highlighted that the rate of granted petitions here is approximately half of those considered at other times of the year, at around 0.6% compared to 1.1% (NYT, 2015). Several theories attempt to explain this phenomenon, ranging from cautious recommendations by new clerks to self-fulfilling prophecies stemming from tactical petitions postponements by experienced attorneys.
The outcome of this conference has significant bearings on the judicial calendar. The court releases a second order list on the first Monday in October, declaring which petitions will not receive a hearing, sometimes comprising lengthy documents detailing hundreds of declines. These decisions can have profound implications, evidenced on October 6, 2014, when the court’s refusal to hear cases paved the way for same-sex marriages in several states.
When the justices convened for the latest long conference, discussions included cases concerning former President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for tariff impositions and the since-repealed COVID-19 vaccine mandate for New York hospital and nursing home employees. As recounted in detail on SCOTUSblog, these deliberations are a procedural cornerstone for the Court’s operational efficacy and legal oversight role.