This article explores the writing of opinions in forty-two state intermediate
appellate courts (SIAC). First, the article summarizes the history of written
opinions in SIACs and surveys the rules that states have developed for when
and what SIACs write. These rules differ, though, which leads to questions
about why we permit, and even encourage, limits on SIAC explanatory writing.
The second section of the article explores four common justifications for these
limitations: correcting error entails less writing than developing law; writing is
not needed for deciding appeals; law clerks write most SIAC opinions; and
writing hampers efficiency and productivity. I conclude that none of these justifications support limitations on explanatory writing in SIACs.
Nonetheless, the flawed justifications for the current landscape of SIAC writ
ing are relevant in the AI horizon. The third section of the article considers how
each of the justifications aligns with AI writing. Truly, courts are at a cross
roads. If SIACs move towards the AI horizon reflexively, maintaining the same
writing rules and practices they have now, decisional quality may decline. But,
if SIACs take this opportunity to integrate AI, evaluate their standards of qual
ity, and revisit their writing rules, their work product could improve. These
courts can better meet the civic purpose for which they were created.

Keep Reading