Doctoral Dissertation Research: Oral Advocacy and Supreme Court Decision Making

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

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.