HB8992, titled the “Supreme Court Certiorari Oversight and Transparency Standards Act” or the “SCCOTUS Act,” would create a new 13-judge Supreme Court Certification Panel made up of circuit judges from the federal courts of appeals. Each term, one judge from each circuit would be randomly selected to serve, with no judge serving consecutive terms. The panel would be responsible for reviewing all petitions for writs of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court and deciding whether to grant or deny them, replacing the current discretionary certiorari process handled by the Justices themselves.
The bill sets out detailed standards for when certiorari may be granted, largely tracking traditional Supreme Court criteria such as circuit splits, conflicts with state high courts, important unresolved federal questions, and cases warranting immediate review before judgment. It also requires written explanations for grants, public annual reporting on petition statistics, monthly meetings, ethics and recusal rules, and public recordkeeping of the random selection process. If the panel grants certiorari, the case would be treated as granted by the Supreme Court and scheduled for oral argument under Supreme Court rules.
If enacted, the bill would significantly amend chapter 81 of title 28 of the U.S. Code by adding a new section establishing the certification panel and by revising the table of sections to reflect that addition. It would shift initial control over Supreme Court case selection from the Justices to a rotating panel of circuit judges, while preserving the Supreme Court’s role in hearing cases that the panel certifies. The bill would also impose new administrative duties on the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the Judicial Conference, including rulemaking, random selection procedures, public reporting, and recordkeeping.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from debate or roll call history. Based on the text alone, the bill appears designed to promote transparency and regularize certiorari review, suggesting a reform-oriented rationale. At the same time, because it would alter a core function of the Supreme Court, it is likely to draw strong institutional and constitutional scrutiny.
The main point of contention is the bill’s transfer of certiorari gatekeeping from the Supreme Court to a panel of lower-court judges, which raises separation-of-powers and judicial-independence concerns. Critics would likely question whether Congress can require the Court to accept cases certified by an outside panel and whether the proposal undermines the Justices’ discretion in managing their docket. Supporters would likely emphasize transparency, random selection, and reducing perceived arbitrariness in Supreme Court case selection, as well as the use of objective criteria and public reporting.