From a court of appeal to a court of precedent: How docket reforms have transformed Nordic high courts’ attention to legal issues

How do changes in docket type transform high court’s dockets? In recent decades, European courts have often responded to increasing caseloads by providing justices or other actors with a higher degree of discretionary docket control. Institutional reform that grants judges more discretion over their docket is assumed to be integral in transforming high courts from a court of appeals that focuses on decision-making case by case, to courts of precedent that clarify and develop the law. Giving judges more control over their docket is expected to reduce the courts’ caseload to give judges more time to select and focus on legally principled cases rather than frivolous appeals. Yet, we have limited knowledge about how increased docket control influences what cases a court decides to hear (and not). In this article, we map different docket types across Nordic high courts from 1970-2020 and study whether and how docket reforms affect the court’s attention to various legal issues. Docket reforms in the Nordic countries have resulted in a variety of docket regimes in the respective high courts, ranging from mandatory dockets to full discretionary dockets. This variation facilitates the analysis of whether and how different docket regimes influence issue attention. Ultimately, the cases that high courts decide to hear affects not only the nature of their decision-making but also their role in the political and judicial systems. By examining how different docket regimes influence issue attention, we gain a better understanding of how high courts seek to fulfill their role as the last judicial instance.