The number of petitions reaching the U.S. Supreme Court has fallen by more than half since its 2006 peak, with the steepest decline coming from filings by people who cannot afford ordinary court costs.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2025 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary said the Supreme Court received 3,856 filings during the 2024 Term, down from 4,223 during the previous term. In the 2006-07 Term, the court received 8,857 filings, according to Roberts’ 2007 year-end report.
Petitions Have Dropped 56% Since 2006
The decline marks a roughly 56% drop from the 2006-07 Term, when Supreme Court filings hit their modern peak.
Filings By Those Unable To Pay Fell Nearly 65%
The Supreme Court received 2,527 IFP filings in the 2024 Term, down from 7,132 in the 2006-07 Term. That represents a decline of nearly 65%.
Paid filings have fallen far less sharply. The paid docket dropped from 1,723 filings in the 2006-07 Term to 1,329 filings in the 2024 Term, a decline of roughly 23%.
The split matters because the two dockets reflect very different paths to the high court. Paid petitions are more likely to come from parties with attorneys and resources. IFP petitions are often filed by prisoners or other litigants representing themselves.
Prisoner Cases Face A Narrower Path
SCOTUSblog pointed to several possible explanations, including federal laws that made prisoner litigation and habeas corpus petitions harder to pursue.
One is the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, which placed new restrictions on prisoner lawsuits, including filing-fee requirements and a “three-strikes” rule for certain dismissed cases.
Another is the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which added procedural hurdles for prisoners seeking federal habeas review of convictions or sentences.
Better Filtering Or Less Access?
The decline can be read in two different ways.
Supporters of stricter filing rules argue that the legal system needs tools to reduce frivolous, repetitive, or meritless prisoner claims before they reach the Supreme Court.
Critics argue the shrinking IFP docket may also mean people who cannot afford ordinary court costs face a narrower path to the nation’s highest court.
That is the core takeaway: the Supreme Court is not just receiving fewer petitions overall. It is receiving far fewer petitions from those least able to pay.
SCOTUSblog also noted that several public-facing descriptions of the court’s workload still cite higher annual petition figures than Roberts’ latest year-end report shows.
For litigants in Texas and across the country, the trend points to the same institutional reality: fewer cases are making it to the Supreme Court’s front door, and the largest decline is coming from those least able to pay.
