COURTS CURRENTLY HAVE SOLE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE RULES WHICH GOVERN THEIR PROCEDURES AND ADMINISTRATION, A PROCESS WHICH EXCLUDES PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. THE HISTORICAL BASIS FOR THIS AUTONOMY IS IN DISPUTE. SOME COMMENTATORS CLAIM COURTS HAVE ALWAYS HAD EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OVER THEIR RULEMAKING WHILE OTHERS MAINTAIN THAT DIVIDED AUTHORITY WAS PROVIDED BY THE FACT THAT THE MONARCH REVIEWED ALL JUDICIAL DECISIONS. COURTS UPHOLD THEIR RIGHT TO MAKE RULES. IN CASES IN NEW JERSEY AND TENNESSEE, CHALLENGES TO COURT RULES WERE QUICKLY DISMISSED. TWO METHODS FOR INVOLVING CONCERNED PARTIES HAVE BEEN PROPOSED. THE FIRST WOULD GIVE THE COURTS AND LEGISLATURES CONCURRENT AUTHORITY. THE COURT WOULD ADOPT THE RULES; THE LEGISLATURE COULD DISAPPROVE, REFUSE TO APPROVE, OR MODIFY THEM. THE SECOND METHOD WOULD ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE RULES WERE ADOPTED THROUGH RULEMAKING CONFERENCES, STANDING RULES COMMITTEES, OR THROUGH PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES SIMILAR TO THOSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES. A SERIES OF TABLES PRESENT THE RESULTS OF AN AMERICAN JUDICATURE SOCIETY SURVEY. THEY SHOW THAT 41 STATES HAVE BAR COMMITTEES AND 34 STATES HAVE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEES AND PRIOR PUBLICATION OF RULES. AT PRESENT MOST INPUT COMES FROM LAWYERS, COURT ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL, AND OTHERS CLOSELY RELATED TO THE COURTS. IT IS DOUBTFUL IF NEW PROCEDURES WOULD INVOLVE THE PUBLIC. REFERENCES ARE FOOTNOTED. (GLR)