This article explores the writing of opinions in forty-two state intermediate
\nappellate courts (SIAC). First, the article summarizes the history of written
\nopinions in SIACs and surveys the rules that states have developed for when
\nand what SIACs write. These rules differ, though, which leads to questions
\nabout why we permit, and even encourage, limits on SIAC explanatory writing.
\nThe second section of the article explores four common justifications for these
\nlimitations: correcting error entails less writing than developing law; writing is
\nnot needed for deciding appeals; law clerks write most SIAC opinions; and
\nwriting hampers efficiency and productivity. I conclude that none of these justifications support limitations on explanatory writing in SIACs.
\nNonetheless, the flawed justifications for the current landscape of SIAC writ
\ning are relevant in the AI horizon. The third section of the article considers how
\neach of the justifications aligns with AI writing. Truly, courts are at a cross
\nroads. If SIACs move towards the AI horizon reflexively, maintaining the same
\nwriting rules and practices they have now, decisional quality may decline. But,
\nif SIACs take this opportunity to integrate AI, evaluate their standards of qual
\nity, and revisit their writing rules, their work product could improve. These
\ncourts can better meet the civic purpose for which they were created.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n