I try to read a few scotus rulings a year and I always wonder if anyone actually reads all the citations, notes, references, etc. It just feels like doing it right would take hundreds of hours. Sometimes I wonder if the judges have read their full final opinions or if its just the clerks.
Im genuinely curuous, how does this work in regular law? Does anyone ever check all the citations, etc? Does a judge really deep read all 200 pages of filings and arguments? Do they just scan them efficiently as a lot of it is familiar?
SCOTUS justices have 4 full-time clerks, and yes they absolutely check all the citations. Getting onto law review in school involves a “cite checking” test, since this is a very important task for lawyers.
Also, some of the citations are routine, and are very well-known by lawyers and judges. For example, when a lawyer sees “Carolene Products footnote 4”, they don’t have to check it to know it’s about interstate commerce. In some SCOTUS opinions, 1/3 of the footnotes could be routine ones like this.
Clerks are portioned out to read a bunch of this. Judges presumably read their own opinions, as do judges who concur with any opinion written. Mind that reading and writing these things is 90% of their job, 10% is the actual hearings, so imagine dedicating at least 40/hrs a week over months and months over this stuff. I imagine it isn't particularly challenging a workload to write.
Lawyers absolutely read every word of court decisions—citations, notes, appendices, concurrences, and dissents. Usually multiple times. But that tends to happen when looking to cite, criticize, or argue about a particular decision that matters. In other words, when you might have to defend your interpretation against another lawyer. And when you have the time. Which is money.
Lawyers reading for other reasons may skim, hunt for specific passages, or even just glance any provided syllabus, depending on why they are reading. When you've read enough of these, by the same judges, living and dead, over and over, you get a sense not just of formatting and structure but written and thinking style, as well. You get better at determining whether and when it's worth a full, deep read.
One of the things American law schools teach by experience in the first year is that the level of attention, organization, and critical thinking expected in reading is far higher, in its own peculiar way, than what most students are used to putting in, even from very strong academic backgrounds. Then they develop endurance for it, by assigning many cases to read for each class session, several times a week, for several classes at once. All in a competitive environment where your hiring prospects largely come down to grades and your grades come down to a single exam per subject, each awarded on strict statistical curves.
Part of it's that you learn what you need to read. Part of it's that you just grind. When you've been grinding long enough, you don't even feel it anymore. It still hurts, but it's a long, slow abrasion on your mind and personality. Not a stitch in your side anymore.
I'll never tell anyone off from reading Supreme Court opinions. It's your court! As long as you can keep it. But for most folks reading for interest, the syllabus is fine. If you want just a little more than that, read the intro and concluding sections of the "opinion of the court". Then read the intro of each dissent, if there are any.
> Im genuinely curuous, how does this work in regular law? Does anyone ever check all the citations, etc?
Yes. At higher levels (state supreme courts and above), there are staff checking every single citation. It's often checked in a paper copy of the original source, which in rare cases could be a book from e.g. the 1700s.
Im genuinely curuous, how does this work in regular law? Does anyone ever check all the citations, etc? Does a judge really deep read all 200 pages of filings and arguments? Do they just scan them efficiently as a lot of it is familiar?