Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-spzww Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-23T17:38:24.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Emotional Language in Briefs before the US Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Ryan C. Black ,
Matthew E. K. Hall ,
Ryan J. Owens  and
Eve M. Ringsmuth
Ryan C. Black
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Matthew E. K. Hall
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame
Ryan J. Owens
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Eve M. Ringsmuth*
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University
*
Contact the corresponding author, Eve Ringsmuth, at eve.ringsmuth@okstate.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The legal brief is a primary vehicle by which lawyers seek to persuade appellate judges. Despite wide acceptance that briefs are important, empirical scholarship has yet to establish their influence on the Supreme Court or fully explore justices’ preferences regarding them. We argue that emotional language conveys a lack of credibility to justices and thereby diminishes the party’s likelihood of garnering justices’ votes. The data concur. Using an automated textual analysis program, we find that parties who employ less emotional language in their briefs are more likely to win a justice’s vote, a result that holds even after controlling for other features correlated with success, such as case quality. These findings suggest that advocates seeking to influence judges can enhance their credibility and attract justices’ votes by employing measured, objective language.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , Fall 2016 , pp. 377 - 407
Copyright
© 2016 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Previous versions of this article were presented at the 2014 meetings of both the Southern Political Science Association and Midwest Political Science Association. We thank Marcus Hendershot, Kevin McGuire, Quinlan Vos, Patrick Wohlfarth, the editor, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

References

Aldisert, Ruggero J. 1996. Winning on Appeal: Better Briefs and Oral Argument. Rev. ed. South Bend, IN: National Institute for Trial Advocacy.Google Scholar
Arey, D. Franklin. 2000. “Competent Appellate Advocacy and Continuing Legal Education: Fitting the Means to the End.” Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 2 (1): 27–46.Google Scholar
Bailey, Michael, and Maltzman, Forrest. 2008. “Does Legal Doctrine Matter? Unpacking Law and Policy Preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 102 (3): 369–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael, and Maltzman, Forrest. 2011. The Constrained Court: Law, Politics, and the Decisions Justices Make. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L. 2009. “The Constraining Capacity of Legal Doctrine on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 103 (3): 474–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2006. Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, Robert W., and Kessler, Joan B. 1987. “Legalese v. Plain Language: An Empirical Study of Persuasion and Credibility in Appellate Brief Writing.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 20:301–22.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C., and Boyd, Christina L. 2012. “US Supreme Court Agenda Setting and the Role of Litigant Status.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 28 (2): 286–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C., and Owens, Ryan J. 2012. The Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court: Executive Branch Influence and Judicial Decisions. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C., Treul, Sarah A., Johnson, Timothy R., and Goldman, Jerry. 2011. “Emotions, Oral Arguments, and Supreme Court Decision Making.” Journal of Politics 73 (2): 572–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casillas, Christopher J., Enns, Peter K., and Wohlfarth, Patrick C. 2011. “How Public Opinion Constrains the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (1): 74–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffin, Frank M. 1994. On Appeal: Courts, Lawyering, and Judging. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Coleman, Brady S., and Phung, Quy. 2010. “The Language of Supreme Court Briefs: A Large-Scale Quantitative Investigation.” Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 11:75–103.Google Scholar
Coleman, Brady S., Phung, Quy H., Carlson, DeAnna, Syed, Shakeb, and Jivani, Zahra. 2013. “Grammatical and Structural Choices in Issue Framing: A Quantitative Analysis of Questions Presented from a Half Century of Supreme Court Briefs.” American Journal of Trial Advocacy 29:327–52.Google Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr., 2004. “Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation.” Law and Society Review 38 (4): 807–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr., 2007. “Lobbyists before the U.S. Supreme Court: Investigating the Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (1): 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M., Jr. 2008. “Amici Curiae and Dissensus on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 5 (1): 143–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C. 2008. “The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Influence of Parties’ Briefs.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (3): 468–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, Frank B., and Tiller, Emerson H. 1998. “Judicial Partisanship and Obedience to Legal Doctrine: Whistleblowing on the Federal Courts of Appeals.” Yale Law Journal 107 (7): 2155–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Knight, Jack. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Knight, Jack. 1999. “Mapping Out the Strategic Terrain: The Informational Role of Amici Curiae.” In Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutional Approaches, ed. Clayton, Cornell W. and Gillman, Howard, 215–35. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A. 2010. “Inferring the Winning Party in the Supreme Court from the Pattern of Questioning at Oral Argument.” Journal of Legal Studies 39 (2): 433–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A. 2013. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey A., and Johnson, Timothy. 1996. “The Claim of Issue Creation on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 90 (4): 845–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Judith D. 2009. “Got Issues? An Empirical Study about Framing Them.” Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors 6:1–27.Google Scholar
Flammer, Sean. 2010. “Persuading Judges: An Empirical Analysis of Writing Style, Persuasion, and the Use of Plain English.” Journal of the Legal Writing Institute 16:183–221.Google Scholar
Frimera, Jeremy A., Aquinob, Karl, Gebauer, Jochen E., Zhu, Luke (Lei), and Oakes, Harrison. 2015. “A Decline in Prosocial Language Helps Explain Public Disapproval of the US Congress.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (21): 6591–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculation on the Limits of Legal Changes.” Law and Society Review 9 (1): 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garner, Bryan A. 2010. “Interviews with United States Supreme Court Justices.” Scribes Journal of Legal Writing 13:1–182.Google Scholar
Halloran, Michael. 1982. “Aristotle’s Concept of Ethos, or If Not His Somebody Else’s.” Rhetoric Review 1 (1): 58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heesacker, Martin, Petty, Richard E., and Cacioppo, John T. 1983. “Field Dependence and Attitude Change: Source Credibility Can Alter Persuasion by Affecting Message-Relevant Thinking.” Journal of Personality 51 (4): 653–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., Lindquist, Stefanie A., and Martinek, Wendy L. 2006. Judging on a Collegial Court: Influences on Federal Appellate Decision-Making. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Hoyland, Carl Iver, Janis, Irving L., and Kelley, Harold H. 1953. Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hoyland, Carl Iver, and Weiss, Walter. 1951. “The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness.” Public Opinion Quarterly 15 (4): 635–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R. 2004. Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the United States Supreme Court. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., Black, Ryan C., Goldman, Jerry, and Treul, Sarah A. 2009. “Inquiring Minds Want to Know: Do Justices Tip Their Hands with Their Questions at Oral Arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court?” Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 29:241–61.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., Wahlbeck, Paul J., and Spriggs, James F. II. 2006. “The Influence of Oral Argumentation before the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 100 (1): 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacovara, Philip Allen. 2008. Federal Appellate Practice. Arlington, VA: Bloomberg BNA.Google Scholar
Lasswell, Harold D. 1948. “The Structure and Function of Communication in Society.” In The Communication of Ideas: Religion and Civilization Series, ed. Bryson, Lyman. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 2005. “What’s the Difference? Comparing the Advocacy Preferences of State and Federal Appellate Judges.” Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 7:335–82.Google Scholar
Lindquist, Stefanie A., and Klein, David E. 2006. “The Influence of Jurisprudential Considerations on Supreme Court Decisionmaking: A Study of Conflict Cases.” Law and Society Review 40 (1): 135–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, Lance N., and Christensen, William F. 2008. “Clearly, Using Intensifiers Is Very Bad, or Is It?” Idaho Law Review 45:171–89.Google Scholar
Long, Lance N., and Christensen, William F. 2011. “Does the Readability of Your Brief Affect Your Chance of Winning an Appeal?” Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 12:145–62.Google Scholar
Long, Lance N., and Christensen, William F. 2013. “When Justices (Subconsciously) Attack: The Theory of Argumentative Threat and the Supreme Court.” Oregon Law Review 91:933–59.Google Scholar
Magidson, Sherman C. 1971. “Preparation and Argument of the Criminal Appeal.” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 62 (2): 173–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maheswaran, Durairaj, and Chaiken, Shelly. 1994. “Heuristic Processing Can Bias Systematic Processing: Effects of Source Credibility, Argument, Ambiguity, and Task Importance on Attitude Judgment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66 (3): 460–73.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, Spriggs, James F. II, and Wahlbeck, Paul J. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Games. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., and Quinn, Kevin M. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10 (2): 134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martineau, Robert J., Sinclair, Kent, Solomine, Michael E., and Holland, Randy J. 2005. Appellate Practice and Procedure. St. Paul, MN: Thomson.Google Scholar
Massaro, Toni M. 1989. “Empathy, Legal Storytelling, and the Rule of Law: New Words, Old Wounds?” Michigan Law Review 87 (8): 2099–2127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCroskey, James C., and Young, Thomas J. 1981. “Ethos and Credibility: The Construct and Its Measurement after Three Decades.” Central States Speeches Journal 32:24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 1995. “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success.” Journal of Politics 57 (1): 187–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 2004. “The Institutionalization of the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Analysis 12 (2): 128–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, Paul R. 1998. “Effective Appellate Advocacy.” Litigation 24 (4): 19–23.Google Scholar
National Public Radio. 2009. “Issue: Sotomayor Differs with Obama on ‘Empathy.’” July 14. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106611626.Google Scholar
Owens, Ryan J., and Wedeking, Justin P. 2011. “Justices and Legal Clarity: Analyzing the Complexity of Supreme Court Opinions.” Law and Society Review 45 (4): 1027–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Ryan J., Wedeking, Justin P., and Wohlfarth, Patrick C. 2013. “How the Supreme Court Alters Opinion Language to Evade Congressional Review.” Journal of Law and Courts 1 (1): 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennebaker, James W., and King, Laura A. 1999. “Linguistic Styles: Language Use as an Individual Difference.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77:1296–1312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petty, Richard E., and Cacioppo, John T. 1981. Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown.Google Scholar
Pornpitakpan, Chanthika. 2004. “The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades’ Evidence.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34 (2): 243–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scalia, Antonin, and Garner, Bryan A. 2008. Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges. St. Paul, MN: Thomson.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cover, Albert D. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83 (2): 557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, Reginald S., Mishler, William, and Songer, Donald R. 1992. “Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties before the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 86 (2): 464–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shephard, John C., and Cherrick, Jordan B. 2006. “Advocacy and Emotion.” Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors 3:152–63.Google Scholar
Springer, James van R. 1984. “Some Suggestions on Preparing Briefs on the Merits in the Supreme Court of the United States.” Catholic University Law Review 33:593–602.Google Scholar
Szmer, John, and Humphries Ginn, Martha. 2014. “Examining the Effects of Information, Attorney Capability, and Amicus Participation on U.S. Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Politics Research 42 (3): 441–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tausczik, Yla R., and Pennebaker, James W. 2010. “The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29:24–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedeking, Justin P. 2010. “Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (3): 617–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wohlfarth, Patrick C. 2009. “The Tenth Justice? Consequences of Politicization in the Solicitor General’s Office.” Journal of Politics 70 (1): 224–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yackee, Susan Webb. 2006. “Sweet-Talking the Fourth Branch: Assessing the Influence of Interest Group Comments on Federal Agency Rulemaking.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 26:103–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar