Determinants of Writing Style on the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals

Budziak, Jeffrey; Hitt, Matthew P.; Lempert, Daniel

doi:10.1086/701128

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sources in judicial political analysis which have used LIWC are numerous: a brief list includes Owens, Wedeking, and Wohlfarth (2013); Hume (2019); Moyer, Hendricks‐Benton, and Balcom (2020); Black et al. (2011); Dietrich, Enos, and Sen (2019); Owens and Wedeking (2011); Corley and Wedeking (2014); Bryan and Ringsmuth (2016); Budziak, Hitt, and Lempert (2019); Zilis and Wedeking (2020); Boston (2020); Collins, Corley, and Hammer (2015); Epstein and Knight (2018); and Black et al (2016).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideology and Risk Focus: Conservatism and Opinion‐Writing In the U.S. Supreme Court

Ballingrud

2020

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuroscience proffers evidence that self-described conservatives have stronger fear responses and aversion to risk than self-described liberals. Combined with studies showing that judicial ideology drives the content of Supreme Court majority opinions, I argue that conservatism is linked to risk focus in Supreme Court majority opinions. I use the Language Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software on a sample of Supreme Court majority opinions, and find that conservative opinions score higher on the LIWC dimension called Risk Focus than liberal opinions. This effect is enhanced in criminal procedural cases. If conservative judges' perceptions of risk are inflated, and if such perceptions are reflected in the binding opinions that they author, then such opinions' heightened sense of risk may influence the perceptions of risk of lower-court judges, which may in turn affect their decision-making in such important areas as sentencing and convictions. Such a pattern raises important questions for the thousands of lower-court decisions which impact the basic liberties of American citizens. Objective. To determine whether judicial ideology affects the focus on risk of Supreme Court opinions. Methods. Original, random sampling of 1200-1300 Court opinions; use of LIWC software to analyze risk focus of each opinion; regression analysis of ideology on risk focus. Results. As ideology becomes more conservative, the Court's opinions demonstrate increased evidence of focus on risk. This effect is pronounced in criminal procedure cases. Conclusion. The theory is supported. Increasingly conservative Court opinions demonstrate an increased focus on risk.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideology and Risk Focus: Conservatism and Opinion‐Writing In the U.S. Supreme Court

Ballingrud

2020

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Empirical legal scholars have used sentiment analysis to analyze judicial opinions (Budziak et al 2019;Busch and Pelc 2019;Carlson et al 2016;Rice and Zorn 2019). Bryan and Ringsmuth (2016) measure the sentiment of U.S. Supreme Court dissents and find that negative language in dissents positively correlates to media coverage.…”

Section: Law-as-datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Computational Legal Studies Comes of Age

Chau,

Livermore

2024

EJELS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Computational analysis techniques are transforming empirical legal scholarship. Two paradigms have emerged: law-as-code, which seeks to represent legal rules in a logical, executable format; and law-as-data, which leverages quantitative analysis of legal texts to reveal patterns and insights. This article surveys these approaches, emphasizing recent developments in large language models and generative artificial intelligence (AI). Law-as-code systems have enabled applications from tax preparation software to smart contracts, but realizing the vision of fully computational law has proven challenging. Law-as-data techniques like natural language processing and machine learning have charted the semantic relationship between courts and illuminated changes in judicial culture. Generative models showcase AI's explosive progress, with impressive feats like passing the U.S. bar example, but they also highlight limitations like factual inaccuracy and interpretability issues. Hybrid approaches integrating computational law, data science, and AI offer a promising research direction. As these tools spread, legal scholars can analyze more legal data than ever before, but they must remain cognizant of challenges like biased or low-quality data and linguistic/cultural limitations. Used judiciously alongside traditional methods, computational analysis has the potential to revolutionize empirical legal studies.

show abstract

“…The measure of cognitive mechanisms has been validated (Tausczik and Pennebaker 2010). As applied to the study of the Supreme Court and judicial decisions, the LIWC software has been used across many research questions (Corley and Justin, 2014;Black, Owens and Wedeking 2016a;Bryan and Kromphardt 2016;Wedeking and Zilis 2018;Budziak, Hitt and Lempert 2019;Krewson 2019b;Denison, Wedeking and Zilis 2020). The percentage of an opinion that includes language indicative of cognitive mechanisms will serve as our dependent variable for this analysis.…”

Section: Indicator 4: Opinion Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Media Attention and Deliberation on the Supreme Court

Badas

Justus

2022

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The news media acts as a “watchdog” over political institutions by holding them accountable for their actions through critical commentary. Being that the Supreme Court rarely interacts directly with the public, the news media is the primary mechanism through which individuals become aware of the Supreme Court’s actions and decisions. Thus, for the Supreme Court, the news media’s role as a “watchdog” takes greater meaning than it does for institutions that often speak directly to the public. Considering this, along with the Supreme Court’s use of strategic presentation, we argue that news media attention to particular cases will influence the extent to which the Supreme Court deliberates on argued cases. We find support for our hypothesis in four contexts. First, cases with more news media attention take longer to produce a published opinion. Second, cases with greater media attention are more likely to be reargued. Third, cases with more news media attention produce a higher number of draft opinions before being published. Fourth, cases with more news media attention produce opinions with a greater share of cognitive mechanisms included in them. Our results have implications for the Justice’s use of strategic behavior and the potential constraints faced by the Court in its decision-making.

show abstract

Determinants of Writing Style on the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals

Cited by 8 publications

References 32 publications

Ideology and Risk Focus: Conservatism and Opinion‐Writing In the U.S. Supreme Court

Ideology and Risk Focus: Conservatism and Opinion‐Writing In the U.S. Supreme Court

Computational Legal Studies Comes of Age

Media Attention and Deliberation on the Supreme Court

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About