Why are US Supreme Court deliberations secret?

Answer 1

Answer

The Supreme Court of the US is not a deliberative body. They 'hear' arguments pro and con in open court - question the attorneys in open court - but then the Justices adjourn to their SEPERATE chambers to research and write their separate opinions about the case they have heard. When they convene the various opinions are published and the majority opinion rules.

Answer

The Supreme Court's deliberations are secret largely out of jurisprudential tradition and history. In the book, The Brethren, by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, copyright 1979, published by Avon Books, Woodward and Scott introduce the reader into the manner in which the Supreme Court has deliberated on important cases since the founding of the Supreme Court. This is taken from the introduction at page i.:

"For those nearly two hundred years, the court has made its decisions in absolute secrecy, handing down its judgments in formal written opinions. Only those opinions, final and unreviewable, are published. No American institution has so completely controlled the way it is viewed by the public. The Court's deliberative process-its internal debates, the tentative positions taken by the Justices, the preliminary votes, the various drafts of written opinions, the negotiations, the confrontations, the compromises-is hidden from public view. The Court has developed certain traditions and rules, largely unwritten, that are designed to preserve the secrecy of its deliberations."

Woodward and Armstrong then describe the process the Court takes in reviewing cases from hearing to opinion. After oral argument is made on a particular case, the Justices hold a private case conference together for a brief discussion to see if there are any differences of opinion on the issues. An initial vote is sometimes taken at this time.

Once a final vote is taken, the job of writing the actual court opinion is assigned to one of the Justices who voted in the majority. That Justice then prepares a preliminary draft, which when finished is circulated to the other Justices for their review. As the draft opinion is reviewed, the Justices will make comments, propose changes even change their initial votes. A draft may go through many revisions before it is acceptable to the majority. Meanwhile the same process might be going on for the minority, or dissenting, opinion. It might be said that more deliberations take place during the reviews of the circulating opinions than at any time in the process, even in the preliminary case conference.

Several additional reasons for secrecy (or privacy) come to mind: 1) Lack of privacy increases the potential for information to be leaked to the press prematurely; 2) Some of the issues discussed may be of a sensitive nature and potentially damaging or embarrassing to a party to the suit; 3) If the deliberations are always private, members of the court are less likely to be accused of, or be vulnerable to, being influenced by special interests; 4) The justices may feel constrained from discussing their opinions candidly in a public forum; 5) It would be considered unethical for members of the Court to discuss the case with anyone other than the other justices.

People may be sensitive to the Supreme Court's "secrecy" about their decision-making process; however, there is very little difference between this practice and that of trial juries determining a defendant's fate in isolation from outside curiosity and influence.