Doctoral Dissertation Research: Oral Advocacy and Supreme Court Decision Making

这一博士论文研究奖是基于这样的想法，即最高法院法官寻求尽可能多的关于审理案情的案件的信息。对于大法官来说，问题是他们收到的几乎所有信息都是其他参与者希望他们考虑的。换句话说，法院对它所提供的大多数信息几乎没有控制权。因此，除非法官要求双方简要介绍一个具体问题，否则他们只有一次可以收集自己想要的信息：留出用于口头辩论的时间。因此，这些程序可能在法院的决策过程中发挥独特和重要的作用。特别是，这项研究解决了两个主要问题：1)最高法院法官在口头辩论中寻求获得哪些类型的信息；2)口头辩论对他们对是非曲直的决定是否重要。在回答这些问题时，该项目采用了一种战略性的司法决策方法。这种做法表明，最高法院法官寻求收集尽可能多的有关案件的信息，因为如果他们要制定有效的政策，他们必须制定关于其他行为者将如何反应他们的决定的信念。此外，如果这一信息对大法官很重要，则应在他们的私下审议和法院关于案情的最后意见中加以处理。为了评估这两个预测，研究检查了大法官在口头辩论中收集的特定类型的信息，然后将这些程序中提出的问题与会议记录、私人文件和最高法院的最终意见进行比较，以辨别大法官在审议过程中是否处理了这些问题。

This doctoral dissertation research award is based on the idea that Supreme Court justices seek as much information as possible about cases heard on the merits. The problem, for the justices, is that almost all the information they receive is what other actors want them to consider. In other words, the Court has little control over the majority of information it is given. As a result, unless justices ask that the parties brief a specific issue, there is only one time when they may gather information they themselves want: the time set aside for oral arguments. As such, these proceedings may play a unique and important role in the Court's decision making process. In particular, this research addresses two main questions: 1) What types of information do Supreme Court justices seek to obtain during oral arguments; and, 2) Are oral arguments important to their decisions on the merits. In answering these questions, the project adopts a strategic approach to judicial decision making. This approach suggest that Supreme Court justices seek to gather as much information as possible about a case, because if they are to create efficacious policies, they must formulate beliefs about how other actors will react to their decisions. Further, if this information is important for the justices then it should be addressed, both in their private deliberations, and in the Court's final opinions on the merits. To assess these two predictions, the research examines the specific types of information the justices gather during oral arguments, and then compares the issues raised during these proceeding with the conference notes, private papers, and final opinions of the Court to discern whether these issues are addressed by the justices in their deliberative process.