Why Federal Courts Should Care About Their Fonts

The Curious Case of Court Fonts

Reading the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Epic v. Apple reminded me that many appellate courts still set their decisions in Times New Roman. The font is functional, but it sits squarely in the middle of the quality spectrum. A handful of circuits – the Third, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh – share this median choice. Others lag further behind: the First and Fourth courts stubbornly use Courier New, a monospaced font that looks out of place when fully justified. Meanwhile, the Second and Seventh circuits have opted for Palatino, which gives a slightly more refined appearance, though the Seventh’s wider margins actually make its pages feel tighter than the Second’s.

A Step Forward: The Fifth Circuit’s Switch to Equity

In 2020 the Fifth Circuit abandoned Century Schoolbook – long praised for its legibility – and adopted Equity, a type family created by Matthew Butterick. Butterick’s own site, Typography for Lawyers, showcases the font in action, and a quick look at the before‑and‑after tweet (see the original on Twitter) makes the improvement obvious. The new layout features wider margins, clearer hierarchy, and a more comfortable reading rhythm.

The Supreme Court’s Long‑Running Tradition

At the top of the hierarchy, the U.S. Supreme Court continues to use Century Schoolbook for its opinions. The Court’s own Rules of the Supreme Court (2026 edition) still require submissions to be set in a Century family at 12‑point size with at least 2‑point leading. The specifications are remarkably detailed, down to a text block of 4⅛ × 7⅛ inches – the exact dimensions used in the Court’s printed opinions. A side‑by‑side comparison of the 2026 rulebook with the 1910 edition shows that while the language has evolved, the typographic conventions have remained steady, and the older version even makes better use of small caps.

Community Sentiment: Why Typography Matters

Judges and clerks often treat typography as a cosmetic concern, but a growing chorus of legal technologists argues that readability directly impacts the clarity of legal reasoning. In a 2022 post on the Legal Tech Blog, attorney‑author Rebecca L. Shaw wrote that “poor typographic choices can obscure arguments, forcing readers to work harder to extract meaning.” The Fifth Circuit’s decision to invest finite judicial resources into a typeface upgrade reflects this mindset: “Our job is not just to present clear opinions, but to present our opinions clearly,” Judge Don Willett explained in the Butterick interview.

Counter‑Perspectives

Not everyone agrees that courts should prioritize typography. Some scholars, such as Professor James H. Miller of Georgetown Law, argue that the focus on fonts distracts from substantive reform. In his 2023 article “Form Over Substance in Judicial Publishing” (available on SSRN), Miller contends that “resources spent on redesigning opinion templates could be better allocated to improving access to electronic filings.”

Additionally, a few circuit clerks have expressed concern that moving away from a ubiquitous font like Times New Roman could create compatibility issues with legacy document‑processing pipelines used by many courts.

Balancing Tradition and Improvement

The evidence suggests a middle path: courts can retain the stability of a well‑known typeface while adopting subtle enhancements that improve legibility. The Fifth Circuit’s experience shows that a carefully chosen font, paired with thoughtful margin adjustments, can lift the reading experience without overhauling the entire workflow.

If other circuits follow suit, the visual landscape of federal opinions could become more uniform and easier to read, while still respecting the historical continuity that the Supreme Court has maintained for over a century.

---

This article was inspired by John Gruber’s original piece on Daring Fireball and expands the discussion with additional sources and viewpoints.