A Computational Analysis of Oral Argument in the Supreme Court

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.05373v1
• Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 13:52:56 GMT
• Title: A Computational Analysis of Oral Argument in the Supreme Court
• Abstract summary: The basic function and operation of oral argument as an institution remains poorly understood. This Article uses machine learning techniques to construct predictive models of judicial decision making. It offers an important new window into aspects of oral argument that have long resisted empirical study.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As the most public component of the Supreme Court's decision-making process, oral argument receives an out-sized share of attention in the popular media. Despite its prominence, however, the basic function and operation of oral argument as an institution remains poorly understood, as political scientists and legal scholars continue to debate even the most fundamental questions about its role. Past study of oral argument has tended to focus on discrete, quantifiable attributes of oral argument, such as the number of questions asked to each advocate, the party of the Justices' appointing president, or the ideological implications of the case on appeal. Such studies allow broad generalizations about oral argument and judicial decision making: Justices tend to vote in accordance with their ideological preferences, and they tend to ask more questions when they are skeptical of a party's position. But they tell us little about the actual goings on at oral argument -- the running dialog between Justice and advocate that is the heart of the institution. This Article fills that void, using machine learning techniques to, for the first time, construct predictive models of judicial decision making based not on oral argument's superficial features or on factors external to oral argument, such as where the case falls on a liberal-conservative spectrum, but on the actual content of the oral argument itself -- the Justices' questions to each side. The resultant models offer an important new window into aspects of oral argument that have long resisted empirical study, including the Justices' individual questioning styles, how each expresses skepticism, and which of the Justices' questions are most central to oral argument dialog.

Related papers

• Persuadability and LLMs as Legal Decision Tools [0.21485350418225244]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are proposed as legal decision assistants, and even first-instance decision-makers.<n>We explore how frontier open- and closed-weights LLMs respond to legal arguments.<n>We report original experimental results examining how the quality of the advocate making those arguments affects the likelihood that a model will agree with a particular legal point of view.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T02:28:34Z)
• AI-Assisted Moot Courts: Simulating Justice-Specific Questioning in Oral Arguments [7.808898285349819]
  We examine whether AI models can effectively simulate justice-specific questioning for moot court-style training.<n>We construct and evaluate both prompt-based and agentic oral argument simulators.<n>We find that simulated questions are often perceived as realistic by human annotators and achieve high recall of ground truth substantive legal issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T01:45:28Z)
• SAD: A Large-Scale Strategic Argumentative Dialogue Dataset [60.33125467375306]
  In practice, argumentation is often realized as multi-turn dialogue.<n>We present the first large-scale textbfStrategic textbfArgumentative textbfDialogue dataset, consisting of 392,822 examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T11:11:37Z)
• Heard or Halted? Gender, Interruptions, and Emotional Tone in U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments [2.28438857884398]
  We analyze 12,663 speech chunks from advocate-justice interactions to assess whether interruptions alter the meaning of an advocate's argument.<n>We find that semantic similarity between pre- and post-interruption speech remains consistently high.<n> interruptions directed at female advocates contain significantly higher levels of negative sentiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-05T15:56:17Z)
• From Argumentation to Deliberation: Perspectivized Stance Vectors for Fine-grained (Dis)agreement Analysis [17.184962277653902]
  We develop a framework for a deliberative analysis of arguments in a computational argumentation setup. We conduct a fine-grained analysis of perspectivized stances expressed in the arguments of different arguers or stakeholders on a given issue. We formalize this analysis in Perspectivized Stance Vectors that characterize the individual perspectivized stances of all arguers on a given issue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T13:08:46Z)
• DELTA: Pre-train a Discriminative Encoder for Legal Case Retrieval via Structural Word Alignment [55.91429725404988]
  We introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval. We leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability. Our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T10:40:14Z)
• Argument Quality Assessment in the Age of Instruction-Following Large Language Models [45.832808321166844]
  A critical task in any such application is the assessment of an argument's quality. We identify the diversity of quality notions and the subjectiveness of their perception as the main hurdles towards substantial progress on argument quality assessment. We argue that the capabilities of instruction-following large language models (LLMs) to leverage knowledge across contexts enable a much more reliable assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-24T10:43:21Z)
• Legal and Political Stance Detection of SCOTUS Language [9.906317924458456]
  We analyze publicly available US Supreme Court documents using automated stance detection. We calculate two distinct ideology metrics of SCOTUS justices using oral argument transcripts. We find that justices who are more responsive to public opinion tend to express their ideology during oral arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-21T18:45:57Z)
• Mining Legal Arguments in Court Decisions [43.09204050756282]
  We develop a new annotation scheme for legal arguments in proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights. Second, we compile and annotate a large corpus of 373 court decisions. Third, we train an argument mining model that outperforms state-of-the-art models in the legal NLP domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-12T08:59:55Z)
• Persua: A Visual Interactive System to Enhance the Persuasiveness of Arguments in Online Discussion [52.49981085431061]
  Enhancing people's ability to write persuasive arguments could contribute to the effectiveness and civility in online communication. We derived four design goals for a tool that helps users improve the persuasiveness of arguments in online discussions. Persua is an interactive visual system that provides example-based guidance on persuasive strategies to enhance the persuasiveness of arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-16T08:07:53Z)
• What About the Precedent: An Information-Theoretic Analysis of Common Law [64.49276556192073]
  In common law, the outcome of a new case is determined mostly by precedent cases, rather than existing statutes. We are the first to approach this question by comparing two longstanding jurisprudential views. We find that the precedent's arguments share 0.38 nats of information with the case's outcome, whereas precedent's facts only share 0.18 nats of information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-25T11:20:09Z)
• AI-lead Court Debate Case Investigation [24.221021061471177]
  In the judicial trial, it can help the judge raise efficient questions so that the judge has a clearer understanding of the case. In this work, we propose an innovative end-to-end question generation model-Trial Brain Model (TBM) to build a Trial Brain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-22T11:05:14Z)
• Pardon the Interruption: An Analysis of Gender and Turn-Taking in U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments [6.015556590955814]
  This study presents a corpus of turn changes between speakers in U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments. Each turn change is labeled on a spectrum of "cooperative" to "competitive" by a human annotator. We analyze the relationship between speech features, the nature of exchanges, and the gender and legal role of the speakers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-15T23:37:48Z)
• The Role of Pragmatic and Discourse Context in Determining Argument Impact [39.70446357000737]
  This paper presents a new dataset to initiate the study of this aspect of argumentation. It consists of a diverse collection of arguments covering 741 controversial topics and comprising over 47,000 claims. We propose predictive models that incorporate the pragmatic and discourse context of argumentative claims and show that they outperform models that rely on claim-specific linguistic features for predicting the perceived impact of individual claims within a particular line of argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-06T23:00:37Z)
• What Changed Your Mind: The Roles of Dynamic Topics and Discourse in Argumentation Process [78.4766663287415]
  This paper presents a study that automatically analyzes the key factors in argument persuasiveness. We propose a novel neural model that is able to track the changes of latent topics and discourse in argumentative conversations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-10T04:27:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.