Updated September 6, 2026 at 8:48 AM PDT
Like many things in the United States, arguments at the Supreme Court have been getting bigger in recent years. Sessions that once lasted an hour are now stretching far beyond — and that's testing the patience of some of the justices.
Chief Justice John Roberts says he's considering some changes for the new term that begins in October. But there may be no easy fix.
The Supreme Court used to be a stickler when it came to oral arguments. Most cases took 60 minutes, start to finish. The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist operated as the enforcer. He slammed the brakes on everyone from the prominent Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe to independent counsel lawyer Brett Kavanaugh, now a justice himself. Lawyers still tell stories about Rehnquist cutting off arguments once time had expired and the light in front of an advocate turned red.
How times have changed.
"The arguments are definitely longer than they used to be," said Adam Feldman, who analyzes the Supreme Court in a Substack devoted to the justices and data. "I mean, they're called for 60 minutes but they've been going 90 minutes or longer for many of them."
The COVID-19 pandemic forced the justices to alter their routine — and it transformed the format for these oral arguments. Each advocate got a bit of time to introduce their case without interruption. And each justice got a few minutes to ask questions individually, before a free-for-all erupted.
"The purpose during COVID was you couldn't see each other telephonically, and so there had to be some ordering or it would have been really messy," Feldman said.
Importance of transparent arguments
Oral arguments are important, especially for the court, which has been sinking in public opinion polls.
"Oral argument is the one open part, the one transparent part of the Supreme Court's decision-making process, so it's very important to have it available to the public, even if the public mostly doesn't listen," said Tonja Jacobi, a law professor at Emory University.
Some of the changes to arguments are almost universally welcomed. Many lawyers are happy to hear from Justice Clarence Thomas, who rarely spoke before the pandemic. Now he gets the first question, because he's the leader in seniority.
Jacobi says some of the format changes — like one that gives each justice dedicated time to speak — seem to respond to her research that shows male justices, and male advocates, had been routinely interrupting the women justices.
But Jacobi says the rates of interruption are no better now, and the justices mostly use their extra time to speak to each other and stand their ground, because she says the court is so polarized and there's not as much room for persuasion.
"It just makes oral arguments harder to listen to because they just take longer without particularly adding all that much," she said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the newest member of the court and one of its three liberals, speaks the most, by far. She is followed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama.
Jacobi said there's a good reason for that.
"Essentially, I think when you're expecting to be on the losing side of an argument, you do more talking to try and persuade people to your side," she said. "Whereas if you're quite confident, as probably most of the conservative justices are now with six in their coalition, you're fairly confident of winning and you don't need to persuade people as much."
Roberts mulls how to rein in length
But some of the other justices seem to have chafed at the supersized oral arguments.
Chief Justice Roberts told an audience this summer that the arguments are now a little too long and he's thinking about how to rein them in.
Former acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall says it's a hard problem.
"I don't know what you do," Wall told an audience at the conservative Federalist Society in July. "It's like when I'm on a conference call and I want someone to stop talking. There's no easy way to get people to talk less when you would like them to."
Feldman, who uses data to explain the work of the court, said time management for the justices is a work in progress, and he thinks Roberts is working on it behind the scenes.
"The chief has to be very thoughtful about where he asserts himself because he wants to manage the court, but he also doesn't want to alienate any of the justices," he said.
Jacobi said some especially important cases the high court hears could easily take much longer than the standard, nearly 90-minute session. She also takes a global view.
"Now I should note that in other jurisdictions such as Australia, my home country, we measure oral arguments in days, not minutes, so it could be worse," she said.
Any changes to the format will be on display on Oct. 5, when the court starts its new term.
Copyright 2026 NPR
