The Influence of Unique Information in Briefs on Supreme Court Opinion Content

Hazelton, Morgan L. W.; Hinkle, Rachael K.; Spriggs, James F.

doi:10.1080/0098261x.2019.1613202

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 125 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nonetheless, they are instructive for our present purpose. Previous research examines how SCOTUS and Supreme Court justice (e.g., opinion pieces) language is predictive of a variety of the Court's processes and outcomes (Black et al, 2011;Brenner & Heberlig, 2002;Carlson et al, 2015;Coleman & Phung, 2010;Feldman, 2016Feldman, , 2017Hawes et al, 2009;Hazelton et al, 2019;Johnson, 2014;Long & Christensen, 2013;Mazzi, 2010;McGuire et al, 2007;Savchak & Bowie, 2016;Skinner & Pludwin, 2013). Moreover, the use of complex and simple language by Supreme Court justices can provide insight into SCOTUS decisions and behavior (Gruenfeld, 1995;Gruenfeld & Preston, 2000;Hansford & Coe, 2019;Owens & Wedeking, 2011;Tetlock et al, 1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the Role of Linguistic Complexity in Famous Trial Outcomes

Zubrod

Conway

et al. 2020

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Famous trials not only generate immense popularity and intrigue, they also have the power to change history. Surprisingly, little research examines the use of complex language during these culturally-significant trial outcomes. In the present study, we helped fill in this gap by evaluating the relationship between attorneys’ use of integratively complex language and trial outcomes. Using the well-validated Automated Integrative Complexity scoring system, we analyzed the complexity of language in the opening and closing statements of famous trials. We found that higher levels of integrative complexity led to a significant increase in winning outcomes, but only for the prosecution. Further, this effect was driven by elaborative forms of complexity and not dialectical forms of complexity. Taken together, these results fill a large gap in our understanding of how language might influence the outcomes of culturally-significant legal proceedings.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the Role of Linguistic Complexity in Famous Trial Outcomes

Zubrod

Conway

et al. 2020

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, as the amount of overlap between the amicus and its supported litigant briefs increases the justices borrow more language from the amicus brief. This might serve as additional evidence that the justices rely more on amicus briefs that repeat arguments made in the litigant briefs, which has been demonstrated in the existing literature (Collins et al, 2015;Hazelton et al, 2019). I've also modeled this using a fractional logit that includes fixed effects for justice and term and the substantive results remain the same.…”

Section: Borrowed Language Resultsmentioning

confidence: 82%

The Supreme Court, Ideology, and the Decision to Cite or Borrow from Amicus Curiae Briefs

Canelo

2021

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars have sought to understand the dual characterization of Supreme Court justices as both legal and political actors. One way to further uncover this complexity is to assess how the justices engage with the interest groups that file amicus curiae or “friend-of-the-Court” briefs. Scholars have revealed that the justices often “borrow language” from these briefs in their opinions. However, much less often, they cite the amici. These two uses are distinct in that one is revealed to the reader while the other is not. So which interest groups do the justices decide to cite and which do they borrow language from? I find the justices borrow more language from ideologically similar interests, but that ideology plays a less central role in the decision to cite. Specifically, I find that the justices are less likely to cite briefs filed by ideologically overt interests, but this only extends to the most ideologically “extreme” groups. Further, the justices are not more likely to cite briefs filed by interests that are ideologically similar to their own preferences. These findings provide insight into how the justices balance policy and legitimacy goals.

show abstract

“…Second, interest groups can file amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs in cases brought forward by other litigants. This option is less resource-intensive than bringing cases directly, but still gives groups the opportunity to shape the content of court opinions, particularly at the Supreme Court level (Hazelton, Hinkle and Spriggs 2019). We will provide a fuller discussion of amicus participation below.…”

Section: Interest Group Advocacy and The Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…broader interest group networks (Bils, Rothenberg and Smith 2020, Box-Steffensmeier, Christenson and Hitt 2013, Christenson and Box-Steffensmeier 2017, Hazelton, Hinkle and Spriggs 2019.…”

Section: Amicus Briefs and Credit Claimingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pursuing Change or Pursuing Credit? Litigation and Credit Claiming on Social Media

Gunderson

Widner²,

Macdonald³

2023

J. law courts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interest groups often post about their judicial advocacy on social media. We argue that they do so for two main reasons. First, providing information about the courts on social media builds the group’s credibility as a source of information with policymakers, media and the public. Second, social media provides a way to claim credit for litigation activity and outcomes, which can increase membership and aid in fundraising. Using original datasets of millions of tweets and Facebook posts by interest groups, we provide evidence that interest groups use social media for public education and to credit claim for their litigation activity.

show abstract

The Influence of Unique Information in Briefs on Supreme Court Opinion Content

Cited by 14 publications

References 125 publications

Understanding the Role of Linguistic Complexity in Famous Trial Outcomes

Understanding the Role of Linguistic Complexity in Famous Trial Outcomes

The Supreme Court, Ideology, and the Decision to Cite or Borrow from Amicus Curiae Briefs

Pursuing Change or Pursuing Credit? Litigation and Credit Claiming on Social Media

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About