Supreme Court’s Oral Arguments Shift Toward Lengthier, More Public Sessions

For roughly five decades the Supreme Court’s oral arguments followed a stable ritual: justices seated behind a mahogany bench, questioning lawyers in a brief, interview-style exchange. The practice changed dramatically after the COVID-19 pandemic forced the Court to abandon in-person hearings for 18 months. When the justices resumed sessions in October 2021, they returned to the bench but with revised questioning techniques and a format that allowed the public to listen live, marking a departure from the long-standing ceremony.

New York Times

In the spring of 2020, as the pandemic escalated, the Court instituted telephone hearings and altered the way questions were posed. These stopgap measures, originally intended as temporary, became the catalyst for a broader transformation of the oral-argument process. The shift included greater transparency, with live audio feeds made available to the public for the first time.

New York Times

Research compiled by legal scholars Lee Epstein and Eric A. Posner indicates that the average length of oral arguments has increased steadily from 2005 through 2026. Their analysis of word counts shows that recent arguments contain more words spoken by each justice per case than earlier sessions. The trend suggests that the post-pandemic format encourages more extensive dialogue between the bench and counsel.

New York Times

The longer, more audible arguments provide citizens with a clearer view of the Court’s deliberations, potentially enhancing democratic accountability. However, scholars note that the expanded duration may also place additional burdens on attorneys and could affect the efficiency of the Court’s docket. Observers continue to assess whether the new format will become a permanent feature of the nation’s highest court.

New York Times