BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — A prominent conservative law professor, Steven Calabresi, and one of his former students recently published a proposal to expand the federal judiciary by creating hundreds of new judgeships. A founder and chairman of the Federalist Society (of which I have been a member since 1984), Professor Calabresi promoted his “judgeship bill” as a way of “undoing” President Barack Obama’s judicial legacy. But there is nothing conservative — or otherwise meritorious — about this proposal.

Professor Calabresi, who teaches at Northwestern University, argues that federal courts are overwhelmed by their caseloads. He complains that appellate courts hear too few oral arguments and issue too many unpublished opinions, and that district courts too rarely conduct jury trials and approve too many plea bargains in criminal cases. He also contends that the federal judicial conference, the policymaking body for the federal courts, opposes more judgeships because it fears an expansion would diminish the prestige of the judiciary. None of this is true.

Professor Calabresi writes as if the judiciary should perform its work as it did when he served as a law clerk in the 1980s for two appellate judges and for Justice Antonin Scalia. But the federal docket and court processes have changed a lot since then — often because of changes championed by conservatives.

Today, courts use unpublished opinions to issue quick, reasoned decisions in routine cases based on settled precedent. For example, thousands of petitions to review deportations and denials of Social Security benefits turn on discrete facts determined by administrative law judges; hearing oral arguments and issuing published opinions in most would only delay decisions that should be speedy.