[Retric]

Case load is simply the number of active cases and therefore not limited to the number of cases but also includes how long each case takes to complete.

As this requires judges to consider a wider range of options it inherently means these cases will take longer thus increasing caseload. Further, it also means bringing these cases before the court will get more expensive as individual cases take longer.

[mike_hearn]

You're assuming that judges are slower to resolve ambiguities than regulators are. My experience with regulators has been that often they not only let the law be ambiguous for years despite repeated requests for them to make a decision, but are then fond of retroactively and suddenly "clarifying" things in response to shifting political/media winds. Nor do they feel any obligation to be consistent with past rulings.

Courts are at least expected to make progress on cases as they are brought, to be roughly consistent with past case law, and they aren't allowed to just refuse to make a decision for a decade and return to it when it's suddenly in the newspapers.

[Retric]

> My experience … rulings.

None of what you mention really applies to specific court cases.

A judge can either defer to the agency involved, or spend a while digging into the underlying intent etc. The second may be “Better” or “Worse”, but if nothing else the first is faster.

[throwup238]

> Nor do they feel any obligation to be consistent with past rulings.

Well, you're in luck with this court!