Monday, May 5, 2025, 11:30 AM – 1 PM EDT
Tonja Jacobi
Professor of law and Sam Nunn Chair in Ethics and Professionalism
Professor of law and Sam Nunn Chair in Ethics and Professionalism"Supreme Court oral arguments: Patterns, predictions, prejudices, & predilections"In a series of studies empirically examining Supreme Court oral argument over 60 years, Professor Tonja Jacobi has demonstrated that there are distinct patterns that can be discerned in Supreme Court oral arguments. These patterns reveal the prejudices and predilections of the justices and can be used to predict ultimate case outcomes. Using text data mining techniques, Jacobi has shown: that Supreme Court oral argument has changed dramatically since the mid-1990s in response to increasing political polarization; how gender affects interactions between the justices and advocates at oral argument, with women disproportionately interrupted by men; that the justices are increasingly strategic in advocating for particular positions; that humor at oral argument is part of that advocacy strategy; and that alterations to the structure of oral arguments can change these patterns, but notably gender differences persist. Prof. Jacobi has also conducted similar research on the Australian High Court and demonstrated that many of the same behaviors can be identified in this fellow apex court, despite highly divergent institutional arrangements. This comparative research calls into question some of the orthodoxies about the Supreme Court.