The last paragraph makes this crystal clear---courts manage their dockets by offloading excess cases.

What this discussion suggests is that, when compared to floodgates arguments that express interbranch and intersystemic concerns, those that express court-centered concerns are on significantly shakier ground. Barring a true flood of tens or hundreds of thousands of cases, no evident principle exists to support the Court taking workload concerns into account when engaging in “[i]nterpretation of the law.”328 Therefore, although the Court may have a legitimate interest in ensuring that the number of filings, and particularly frivolous filings, does not become too high, it should be wary of using substantive law as the limiting device. Speaking of unmeritorious cases in particular, Justice Stevens has argued, “Frivolous cases should be treated as exactly that, and not as occasions for fundamental shifts in legal doctrine. Our legal system has developed procedures for speedily disposing of unfounded claims; if they are inadequate . . . then there is something wrong with those procedures, not with the law.”329 Accordingly, the Court should have a presumption against using court-centered floodgates arguments. The problems of case flow should be addressed through case management and, more broadly, the tools of Congress.