BASED ON INTERVIEWS WITH 18 STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES AND COMPLEMENTARY RESEARCH ON ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES AND RULEMAKING PROCEDURES, THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS ARE DRAWN: (1) CHIEF JUSTICES ARE GROWING MORE INFLUENTIAL AS ADMINISTRATIVE HEADS OF COURT SYSTEMS AS COURTS MOVE AWAY FROM THE COLLEGIAL STYLE AND TOWARD INDIVIDUAL ADMINSTRATIVE LEADERSHIP; (2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DELEGATED ADMINSTRATIVE POWER EXERCISED BY STATE COURT ADMINSTRATORS IS INCREASING AS STATE COURT SYSTEMS BECOME MORE UNIFIED AND TURN TO CENTRALIZED FINANCING; (3) WHETHER A STATE JUDICIAL LEADERSHIP REGULARLY PROMULGATES ADMINSTRATIVE RULES BEARS LITTLE RELATION TO THE DEGREE OF ADMINSTRATIVE POWER EXERCISED BY THE SUPREME COURT OR CHIEF JUSTICE; (4) TRIAL COURT UNIFICATION, COURT FINANCING, PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION, COURTHOUSE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OR REVAMPING OF AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT ARE THE PREVALENT AREAS OF JUDICIAL ADMINSTRATIVE DECISIONMAKING; (5) MOST SUPREME COURTS CONSIDER ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AT THEIR REGULAR WEEKLY OR MONTHLY JUDICIAL OPINION CONFERENCES, USUALLY THROUGH THE MECHANISM OF AN AGENDA PREPARED BY THE STATE COURT ADMINSTRATOR; (6) SUPREME COURTS TEND TO RESOLVE ADMINSTRATIVE ISSUES BY FORMAL VOTE RESULTING IN ISSUANCE OF A RULE OR ORDER; AND (6) IMPLEMENTATION AND FOLLOWUP, WHERE UNDERTAKEN AT ALL, ARE GENERALLY REGARDED AS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR. A TABLE IS PROVIDED TO SHOW THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT ADMINSTRATIVE POLICY PROCESS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED---RCB)