Any methodology for constructing legislation-court impact statements must be an amalgamation of techniques drawn from various strains in court research. Both caseloads and case processing may be influenced by proposed legislation, and methods to capture these impacts are drawn from forecasting, operations research and formal modeling, studies of judicial and litigant behavior, and analyses of court administration. A review of methodological complications and obstacles in constructing judicial-impact statements yields a pessimistic conclusion about the usefulness of further investment in such statements; however, as vehicles for basic research, judicial-impact statements can synthesize efforts in caseload forecasting, management science, and studies of judicial behavior and administration while enhancing understanding of how Federal courts process their workloads. Embedded in the procedural and structural foundations of institutions that make and administer public policy, however, are characteristics that virtually prohibit the use of impact statements as definitive bases for policymaking or as reliable guides to court management. Impact analysis does indicate a broad strategy of reducing adverse impacts of legislation on courts by suggesting the provision of more judicial resources and the rejection of proposals that would mandate case-processing practices. Twenty-three references are provided.