To begin, To start, — Please End!

On a SCOTUS Writing Tic Whose Time Has Come ...

The introductory phrases “To begin,” and “To start,” have become writing tics in Supreme Court opinions, as well as in many filings.

I have been irked by this trend for a while, but the past week has been too much.

Here are eleven examples I found after control-F searching the ten most recent cases listed on the Court’s homepage:

• Skrmetti: majority/Roberts (“To start,”), Barrett (“To begin,”), and Alito (“To begin,”)

• Esteras: majority/Barrett (“To begin,”—twice)

• McLaughlin: majority/Kavanaugh (“To begin,”—twice)

• Stanley: majority/Gorsuch (“To start,”) and Thomas (“To start,”)

• Diamond: majority/Kavanaugh (“To begin,”)

• Calumet: majority/Thomas (“To begin,”)

I seemed to remember this tic appearing in SFFA v. Harvard (2023). Sure enough, Justice Thomas’s concurrence uses “To start,” an incredible four times. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent uses both “To start,” and “To begin,”.

Imagine if every opinion included a gratuitous “In conclusion,” or “To end,”.

A few observations and caveats.

First, writing trends and fads aren’t new and are often even good. In law, they remind us that we are engaged in a social practice. But it is time for this tide to go out.

Second, I haven’t confirmed my strong perception that this trend is fairly new. But I cannot delay posting this. Some opinions this term might still be saved.

Third, all the most recent examples I just found came from the conservative justices—and, indeed, came from all six of the conservatives. Maybe that’s a coincidence or fluke.

Finally, this tic is particularly undesirable because it suggests a self-conscious performance. It makes the writer visible, and it also implies a planned routine, rather than fluid thought.

I can imagine many readers asking, “OK, but is this issue really so troubling as to be worth either a post or my time?” The answer is Yes, for several reasons.

To begin, …

Or better yet— let’s end!