How Will Record-Low Fertility Affect Future Court Caseload?

The U.S. fertility rate—the average number of children born per woman—hit an all-time low of 1.6 in 2024, far below the replacement rate of 2.1. The replacement rate is what’s needed for the population to grow since slightly more than two children “replace” the mother and father.

Obviously, a woman can’t give birth to a fraction of a child—it’s an average across all women of childbearing age. Some have more children, many have none. But when the national average falls below 2.1, it means fewer babies are being born overall. If this trend continues, the U.S. population will eventually begin to shrink.

The U.S. is not alone in this trend. In fact, many developed countries have seen their birth rates drop over the years. The U.S. previously was one of the few developed countries with a replacement rate over 2.1 with higher birth rates compared to Western European countries. But birth rates have been falling for decades as women delay having children or choose not to have any children at all.

Back in 1976, according to the Census Bureau, only about 31% of women age 25 to 29 didn’t have children. By 2024, that number had more than doubled to 63%. The same pattern shows up for older age groups too—among women ages 30–34, the share without children rose from 16% to 40%, and for ages 35–39, it went from 11% to 23%. Even women ages 40–44 are more likely to be childless now, rising from 10% to 19%. In short, more women are waiting longer to have kids and more are choosing not to have them at all.

One way to offset low fertility is through immigration. Foreign-born women in the U.S. tend to have more children on average—about 2.2 over their lifetime, compared to 1.6 for women born in the U.S. But because there are far more native-born women, and because fertility rates among immigrants are also declining, the overall impact is small. Therefore, immigration can help slow the population decline, but it can’t help fully solve the low birth rate issue on its own.

So what does this mean for courts?

Population and Court Caseload

The connection between population and court caseload isn’t as clear as it may seem. When comparing locations, more population usually equals more caseload. In Virginia, the city of Richmond has more than twice the residents of Roanoke and it also sees twice as many case filings.

But here’s where it gets tricky. Both cities have fewer cases today than they had in 2014 despite Richmond growing in population and Roanoke slightly shrinking over the last decade.

So does population really drive court caseload? The answer isn’t straightforward.

In a single city or county, a growing population doesn’t always mean more cases—even though it seems like it should. More people usually means more activity: more business deals, more traffic, and more interactions that could lead to disputes or crimes.

So, in theory, population growth should bring more civil cases, traffic tickets, and criminal charges. But in reality, that’s not always what happens—and that’s what makes this trend so surprising.

The opposite can also be true. Declines in economic activity due to population losses can increase both civil and criminal caseload. Evictions can increase, and domestic issues like harassment and restraining orders can rise.

At the same time, crimes of opportunity can jump if property is left vacant or if there are less people around to deter assaults and robberies.

Overall, there doesn’t seem to be a strong link between population and court caseload. Despite population growth, many courts we have worked with have seen lower filings over the past 15 years or more. This drop accelerated during the pandemic and while filings have since rebounded, they’ve mostly returned to the long-term trend of gradual decline.

In many jurisdictions, criminal cases have fallen the most, reflecting increased prosecutorial discretion and use of diversionary programs, especially for juveniles. Overall, there has been a trend of fewer people ending up in court, resulting in declines in both civil and criminal cases. 

There have been exceptions where subsets of caseload have been increasing. Many of our county clients in Georgia and Virginia are seeing consistent strong demand for handgun permits, which are approved by a court or a county clerk. The aging population boosts probate caseload. Protective orders have been growing over time, which is offsetting declines in other areas of domestic relations caseload.

Despite declining caseloads, many courts we work with say they are plenty busy. A term we frequently hear from clients is complexity—the overall number of cases is falling but the average case is more complex, requiring substantial court resources.

Complexity in court cases can be hard to measure, but it definitely applies to juvenile cases. Over time, many jurisdictions have built extensive programs and staff to support young offenders. Even though the number of juvenile cases in many locations may not be growing—and more are being handled through diversion programs instead of formal court—there are now more touchpoints in the system, making these cases more complex and resource-intensive than before. 

Implications

What are the implications of lower population for court caseload?

1. Short-term trends should continue. In the short term, we can expect overall caseloads to stay lower even though a few specific case types may rise slightly. Complexity should also gradually increase as only those “must litigate” cases are filed. Overall, fewer people are engaging with the court system both on the civil side (fewer lawsuits) and criminal side (fewer charges being filed).
   
   
2. Caseload and systems will adapt. Regardless of how population and caseload trends shift, court systems will adapt to meet new challenges. Over the years, there have been numerous diversionary programs, specialty courts, and alternative dispute resolution programs that attempt to avoid the traditional adjudicatory process. In a way, the decline in caseloads is actually a sign of these programs working. Expect to see more of these innovative approaches in the future, which will help balance out the overall drop in cases.
   
   
3. The long-term outlook is uncertain—and budgets could feel the squeeze. Looking decades ahead, it’s hard to predict how a declining population will affect court caseloads. Population loss tends to happen slowly, and some regions are already seeing it. The bigger concern may be shrinking tax revenues. With fewer people working, spending, and paying taxes, court budgets could tighten, leading to cuts in staffing or capital projects like new facilities or technology upgrades. 

Final Thoughts

While U.S. population is projected to fall in the long term, it’s uncertain how that will affect court caseload. Over the past 15 years, population growth hasn’t translated into more cases—in fact, caseloads have continued to fall.

In the short term, expect gradually declining caseload and increasing complexity to continue. Long term, the bigger challenge may be a shrinking tax base, which could strain court budgets, staffing, and infrastructure projects.