The U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed its longstanding requirement for litigants to submit 40 physical copies of legal briefs, a practice that remains unchanged despite the digitization of court proceedings across the country. This rule, which has been in place for decades, results in the printing of millions of pages annually, according to court records. Legal scholars and environmental advocates have repeatedly criticized the policy as an outdated and wasteful process that undermines the efficiency of the judicial system.
During the pandemic, the court temporarily relaxed the printing rules to accommodate remote filing and reduce physical contact. However, in late 2022, it reinstated the original requirements, citing the need for a ‘paper trail’ to ensure the integrity of legal proceedings. Critics argue that the decision reflects a failure to modernize court procedures and that the cost of printing and distributing these documents places an unnecessary financial burden on the parties involved. The practice has also drawn attention for its environmental impact, with advocates calling for a transition to fully digital submissions to reduce paper waste and carbon emissions.
While the Supreme Court has not yet responded to calls for reform, legal groups continue to push for updates to the rules. Advocacy organizations argue that the current system is both costly and inefficient, and that the transition to digital briefs could streamline the legal process while reducing its environmental footprint. As the court faces increasing pressure to adapt to the digital age, the issue of paper-based legal submissions remains a topic of debate among legal professionals and environmentalists alike.