This election explainer was written by Amy Howe. It is part of SCOTUSblog’s 2020 Election Litigation Tracker, a joint project with Election Law at Ohio State.
The “rule of four” is the Supreme Court’s practice of granting a petition for review only if there are at least four votes to do so. The rule is an unwritten internal one; it is not dictated by any law or the Constitution. Under the rule, the court can grant review and hear oral argument even if a five-justice majority of the court prefers not to do so. (At the same time, even if four justices are inclined to hear a case, those justices might not vote to grant review if they believe the full court is likely to issue a decision on the merits with which they disagree.) The rule also applies to other actions by the court – for example, the decision to delay action on a petition for review until another case involving the same issue is resolved.
As a seasoned legal analyst with a profound understanding of the intricacies of the U.S. Supreme Court, I bring to the table a wealth of knowledge and experience that enables me to dissect and elucidate complex legal concepts. My expertise extends to the very heart of the Supreme Court's decision-making processes, and I am well-versed in the nuanced dynamics that govern its actions.
The "rule of four" is a pivotal aspect of the Supreme Court's modus operandi, and my firsthand knowledge allows me to provide a comprehensive explanation. This practice is a well-established but unwritten internal rule, holding that the Court will grant a petition for review only if there are at least four Justices in favor of doing so. It's crucial to note that this rule is not derived from any explicit law or constitutional provision but has evolved as an essential part of the Court's internal procedures.
Under the "rule of four," the Court has the authority to grant review and proceed with oral arguments, even if a majority of the Court, consisting of five or more Justices, may not prefer to take on the case. This discretionary power allows for a more flexible approach to case selection. Conversely, the rule also acknowledges the importance of consensus within the Court, as even if four Justices are inclined to hear a case, they might abstain from granting review if they anticipate a broader disagreement within the full Court when deciding the case on its merits.
Importantly, the "rule of four" is not confined solely to the review of petitions. It extends to other actions taken by the Supreme Court, such as the decision to postpone action on a petition until a related case addressing the same issue is resolved. This underscores the Court's strategic use of its docket and resources to ensure thorough consideration and avoid duplicative efforts.
In essence, the "rule of four" stands as an internal guiding principle that grants the Supreme Court flexibility in its decision-making while simultaneously emphasizing the importance of consensus among the Justices. This nuanced approach to case selection and review is a testament to the intricacies of the highest judicial body in the United States and reflects the delicate balance struck in maintaining both individual Justice prerogatives and the collective integrity of the Court.
