Toward an Actor-Based Measure of Supreme Court Case Salience

Black, Ryan C.; Sorenson, Maron W.; Johnson, Timothy R.

doi:10.1177/1065912912469729

Cited by 21 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Transcript of Oral Argument at 14, Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 ( 2006)). A non-substantive statement like Breyer's counts as a speech episode but constitutes random noise in our data (Black et al, 2013;Johnson et al, 2009). 13 To count the number of words and the number of turns, we included an observation in the dataset for each justice in each case (thus each case has nine distinct rows).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…Michigan , 547 U.S. 586 (2006)). A non‐substantive statement like Breyer's counts as a speech episode but constitutes random noise in our data (Black et al, 2013; Johnson et al, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 79%

“…This includes partial and repeated words, sentences cut off by an interrupting colleague or attorney, as well as substantively irrelevant content, such as when a justice says something not pertaining to the case (see note 12). These instances are randomly distributed, and existing work demonstrates they do not affect analysis of justices' questions and comments (see e.g., Black et al, 2013;Johnson et al, 2009). 11 We include only cases from the fourth natural Roberts Court (i.e., only those cases heard after Kavanaugh joined the Court in October 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

SCOTUS in the time of COVID: The evolution of justice dynamics during Oral arguments

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We assess changes in oral arguments at the US Supreme Court precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the degree to which those changes persisted once the justices acclimated to the new procedures. To do this, we examine whether key attributes of these proceedings changed as the Court experimented with telephonic hearings and subsequently returned to inperson oral arguments. We demonstrate that the initial telephonic forum changed the dynamics of oral argument in a way that gave the chief justice new power and reconfigured justices' engagement during these proceedings. However, we also show that the associate justices adapted to this new institutional landscape by changing their behavior. The findings shed light on the consequences of significant, novel disruptions to institutional rules and norms in the government and legal system. | INTRODUCTIONIn early 2020, the public health threat posed by the COVID-19 pandemic forced institutions, both public and private, to reevaluate how to safely conduct their work. Courts across the US met via Zoom, Skype, or telephone, and many legislative and executive bodies did the same. The US Supreme Court was no exception. After initially delaying all sessions when it was unclear how long the pandemic would last, it soon became apparent that the Court had to find a means to, at a minimum, address the most pressing pending cases, which concerned issues ranging from Congress' ability to subpoena the president's tax records (Trump v. Mazars 1 ), employers' religious rights under the First Amendment (Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v. Pennsylvania 2 ), and states' abilities to control presidential electors (Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca 3 ). To this end, the Court announced on April 13, 2020, that it would hear oral arguments remotely via telephone conference beginning

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…Michigan , 547 U.S. 586 (2006)). A non‐substantive statement like Breyer's counts as a speech episode but constitutes random noise in our data (Black et al, 2013; Johnson et al, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

SCOTUS in the time of COVID: The evolution of justice dynamics during Oral arguments

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their analysis on persuasion at oral argument, Li and Pryor (2020) found that the grades influenced justices' votes. Black, Sorenson, and Johnson (2012) examined whether the Court asked more or fewer questions when faced with higher (lower) quality attorney arguments. Black et al (2016) used the measure when examining the effects of emotional language in party briefs.…”

Section: The Value Of Oral Argumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Order effects and oral argument at the US Supreme Court

Owens

2023

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveFor years, scholars have employed Justice Harry Blackmun's private grades of attorneys to measure attorney oral argument quality. Using archival data, I analyze whether Justice Blackmun experienced order effects.MethodsI estimate numerous ordinary least squares regression models on private archival data.ResultsBlackmun's respondent grades appear to have been influenced by his perceptions of how the petitioners performed. This finding holds across a series of checks, including those that examine whether some cases simply attract better or worse attorneys.ConclusionThe results suggest that scholars should not use the Blackmun grades as “point estimates” but, instead, as rankings. They also suggest that previous findings may have overstated the influence of oral argument. The fact that one justice displayed evidence of a cognitive illusion also suggests that such effects may exist in various aspects of decision making.

show abstract

The Strategic Analysis of Judicial Behavior

Epstein

Weinshall

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do judges craft vague opinions if these are less likely to be implemented? In a game-theoretic model, Staton and Vanberg (2008) argue that opinion vagueness is a function of judge's policy preferences and their fear of potential noncompliance by the legislature. Yet, the court's ability to use vagueness ultimately depends on their level of public support. I empirically test the implications of their model in a comparative study of two constitutional courts in Germany and France, analyzing novel data on opinion vagueness obtained by neural networks. My findings confirm that a court's public support is indeed the key factor for explaining how courts strategically use vagueness. The German Federal Constitutional Court, a court with high public support, uses vagueness primarily to take advantage of the policy expertise of other policy makers and to strategically pressure the legislature. In contrast, the French Conseil Constitutionel, a court with low public support, uses vagueness as a "defensive mechanism" to hide noncompliance from public view. My results therefore imply that current models of judicial behavior underestimate the full extent of strategic behavior of courts.

show abstract

Toward an Actor-Based Measure of Supreme Court Case Salience

Cited by 21 publications

References 24 publications

SCOTUS in the time of COVID: The evolution of justice dynamics during Oral arguments

SCOTUS in the time of COVID: The evolution of justice dynamics during Oral arguments

Order effects and oral argument at the US Supreme Court

The Strategic Analysis of Judicial Behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About