Public debates rage over the importance of diversity. In attempts to inform such discourse, political scientists generally focus on individual-level characteristics. This approach ignores that small groups lie at the heart of governmental and societal work. Drawing from research on business and management stressing group composition is consequential for outcomes, we explore how the presence of higher proportions of female attorneys in explicit roles on litigation teams at the U.S. Supreme Court impacts written advocacy in briefs and their role in judicial decision-making. We find higher rates of female participation increase the volume, readability, and strategic nature of the information contained in briefs. However, these advantages don’t result in significant advantages in the Supreme Court outcomes, raising issues of gender bias. Overall, our findings have implications for a wide range of governmental groups and types of advocacy in numerous political contexts.
AliMuhammadKulikCarol T.MetzIsabel. 2011. “The Gender Diversity–Performance Relationship in Services and Manufacturing Organizations.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management22: 1464–1485.
2.
AnziaSarah F.BerryChristopher R.. 2011. “The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson Effect: Why Do Congresswomen Outperform Congressmen?” American Journal of Political Science55 (3): 478–493.
3.
AtkinsonMary Layton. 2020. “Gender and Policy Agendas in the Post-War House.” Policy Studies Journal48 (1): 133–156.
4.
BarnesTiffany D.CasseseErin C.. 2017. “American Party Women: A Look at the Gender Gap within Parties.” Political Research Quarterly70 (1): 127–141.
5.
BestRebecca H.Shair-RosenfieldSarahWoodReed M.. 2019. “Legislative Gender Diversity and the Resolution of Civil Conflict.” Political Research Quarterly72 (1): 215–228.
6.
BirdChristine Catherine. 2022. The Gatekeeping Role of the Office of the Solicitor General at the Certiorari Stage. PhD thesis.
7.
BlackRyan C.OwensRyan J.WedekingJustinWohlfarthPatrick C.. 2016. U.S. Supreme Court Opinions and Their Audiences. Cambridge University Press.
8.
BoussalisConstantineCoanTravis G.HolmanMirya R.MullerStefan. 2021. “Gender, Candidate Emotional Expression, and Voter Reactions During Televised Debates.” American Political Science Review115 (4): 1242–1257.
9.
BowieJennifer BarnesSongerDonald R.SzmerJohn. 2014. The View from the Bench and Chambers: Examining Judicial Process and Decision Making on the US Courts of Appeals. University of Virginia Press.
10.
BoydChristina L.2016. “Representation on the Courts? The Effects of Trial Judges’ Sex and Race.” Political Research Quarterly69 (4): 788–799.
11.
BoydChristina L.LeeEpsteinMartinAndrew D.. 2010. “Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging.” American Journal of Political Science54 (2): 389–411.
12.
CampbellDavid E.WohlbrechtChristina. 2006. “See Jane Run: Women Politicians as Role Models for Adolescents.” Journal of Politics68: 223–247.
13.
CarmeliAbrahamBruellerDaphnaDuttonJane E.. 2009. “Learning Behaviours in the Workplace: The Role of High-Quality Interpersonal Relationships and Psychological Safety.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science26 (1): 81–98.
14.
CollinsPaul M.2008. Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. Oxford University Press.
15.
CollinsPaul M.ManningKenneth L.CarpRobert A.. 2010. “Gender, Critical Mass, and Judicial Decision Making.” Law & Policy32 (2): 260–281.
16.
CollinsPaul M.CorleyPamela C.HamnerJesse H.. 2015. “The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Content.” Law & Society Review49 (4): 917–944.
17.
CorleyPamela C.2008. “The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Influence of Parties’ Briefs.” Political Research Quarterly61: 468–478.
18.
DaiYeByunGukdoDingFangsheng. 2019. “The Direct and Indirect Impact of Gender Diversity in New Venture Teams on Innovation Performance.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice43 (3): 505–528.
19.
DavidsonRoger H.OleszekWalter J.LeeFrances E.SchicklerEric. 2019. Congress and its Members. CQ Press.
20.
DietrichBryce J.EnosRyan D.SenMaya. 2018. “Emotional Arousal Predicts Voting on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Analysis27: 237–243.
21.
DworkinRonald. 1986. Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press.
22.
EaglyAliceCarliLinda L.. 2007. Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women Become Leaders. Harvard Business Review.
23.
EdmondsonAmy. 1999. “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly44 (2): 350–383.
24.
EpsteinLeeKnightJack. 1999. Institutional Approaches to Supreme Court Decision Making. University of Chicago Press chapter Mapping Out the Strategic Terrain: The Informational Role of Amici Curiae.
25.
EpsteinLeeLandesWilliam M.PosnerRichard A.. 2010. “Inferring the Winning Party in the Supreme Court from the Pattern of Questioning at Oral Argument.” The Journal of Legal Studies39 (2): 433–467.
26.
EpsteinLeeLandesWilliam M.PosnerRichard A.. 2013. The Behavior of Federal Judges. Harvard University Press.
27.
FeldmanAdam. 2016. “Counting on Quality: The Effects of Merits Brief Quality on Supreme Court Decisions.” Denver Law Review94: 43–70.
28.
FeldmanAdam. 2017. “Opinion Construction in the Roberts Court.” Law & Policy39 (2): 192–209.
29.
FischerJudith D.2003. “The Role of Ethics in Legal Writing: The Forensic Embroiderer, the Minimalist Wizard, and Other Stories.” Scribes Journal of Legal Writing9: 77.
30.
FiskCatherine L.2006. “Credit where it’s Due: the Law and Norms of Attribution.” Georgetown Law Journal95: 49.
31.
FleschRudolf. 1948. “A New Readibility Yardstick.” Journal of Applied Psychology32: 221–233.
32.
FoxRichard L.LawlessJennifer L.. 2014. “Uncovering the Origins of the Gender Gap in Political Ambition.” American Political Science Review108 (3): 499–519.
33.
GalanterMarc. 1974. “Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law & Society Review9 (1): 95–160.
34.
GarnerBryan A.2010. “Interviews with United States Supreme Court Justices.” Scribes Journal of Legal Writing13: 1–62.
35.
GleasonShane A.2020. “Beyond Mere Presence: Gender Norms in Oral Arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly73 (3): 596–608.
36.
GleasonShane A.2024. “Since You Put it that Way. Gender Norms and Interruptions at Supreme Court Oral Arguments.” Social Science Quarterly105 (3): 582–596.
37.
GleasonShane A.SmartEmiLee. 2023. “You Think; Therefore I Am: Gender Schemas & Context in Oral Arguments at the Supreme Court, 1979-2016.” Political Research Quarterly76: 143–157.
38.
GleasonShane A.JonesJennifer J.McBeanJessica Rae. 2017. “Gender Performance in Party Brief Success.” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy54: 89–100.
39.
GleasonShane A.JonesJennifer J.Rae McBeanJessica. 2019. “The Role of Gender Norms in Judicial Decision-Making at the U.S. Supreme Court: The Case of Male and Female Justices.” American Politics Research47 (3): 494–529.
40.
GoodmanJordana R.2023. “Ms. Attribution: How Authorship Credit Contributes to the Gender Gap.” Yale Journal of Law & Technology25: 309.
41.
HaireSusan B.MoyerLaura P.. 2015. Diversity Matters: Judicial Policy Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. University of Virginia Press.
42.
HansfordThomas G.SpriggsJames F.. 2006. The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton University Press.
43.
HazeltonMorgan L. W.2022. “Using tf-id and Cosine Similarity to Compare Legal Texts.” Law & Courts Newsletter32: 1.
44.
HazeltonMorgan L. W.HinkleRachael K.. 2022. Persuading the Supreme Court: The Significance of Briefs in Judicial Decision-Making. Kansas University Press.
45.
HendersonLorenHerringCedric. 2013. “Does Critical Diversity Pay in Higher Education? Race, Gender, and Departmental Rankings in Research Universities.” Politics, Groups, and Identities1 (3): 299–310.
46.
HojnackiMarieKimballDavid C.. 1999. “The Who and How of Organizations’ Lobbying Strategies in Committee.” The Journal of Politics61 (4): 999–1024.
47.
HuangChiung-YiLiuYi-Ching. 2022. “Influence of Need for Cognition and Psychological Safety Climate on Information Elaboration and Team Creativity.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology31 (1): 102–116.
48.
HurwitzMark S.LanierDrew Noble. 2003. “Explaining Judicial Diversity: The Differential Ability of Women and Minorities to Attain Seats on State Supreme and Appellate Courts.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly3 (4): 329–352.
49.
KahenyErin B.SzmerJohnSarverTammy A.. 2011. “Women Lawyers before the Supreme Court of Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science44 (1): 83–109.
50.
KanterRosabeth Moss. 1977. “Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and RResponse to Token Women.” American Journal of Sociology82 (5): 965–990.
51.
KarpowitzChristopher F.MendelbergTali. 2014. The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation, and Institutions. Princeton University Press.
52.
KarpowitzChristopher F.MendelbergTaliMitchell ElderElizabethRibarDavid. 2024. “The Effects of Racial Diversity in Citizen Decision-Making Bodies.” The Journal of Politics86 (1): 199–215.
53.
KreissDaniel. 2009. “Developing the “Good Citizen”: Digital Artifacts, Peer Networks, and Formal Organization During the 2003–2004 Howard Dean Campaign.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics6 (3-4): 281–297.
54.
LazarusJeffreySteigerwaltAmy. 2018. Gendered Vulnerability: How Women Work Harder to Stay in Office. University of Michigan Press.
55.
LeonardMeghan E.RossJoseph V.. 2020. “Gender Diversity, Women’s Leadership, and Consensus in State Supreme Courts.” Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy41 (3): 278–303.
56.
LermanLisa G.2000. “Misattribution in Legal Scholarship: Plagiarism, Ghostwriting, and Authorship.” South Texas Law Review42: 467.
57.
MaltzmanF.SpriggsJ.F.WahlbeckP.J.. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. Cambridge University Press.
58.
MartinekWendy L.2010. “Judges as Members of Small Groups.” In The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making, edited by KleinDavid E.MitchellGregory, 73–94. Oxford University Press.
59.
McDermottRoseHatemiPeter K.. 2011. “Distinguishing Sex and Gender.” PS: Political Science & Politics44 (1): 89–92.
60.
McGuireKevin T.VanbergGeorgYanusAlixandra B.. 2007. “Targeting the Median Justice: A Content Analysis of Legal Arguments and Judicial Opinions.” In Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, 2007.
61.
MendelbergTaliKarpowitzChristopher F.OliphantJ. Baxter. 2014. “Gender Inequality in Deliberation: Unpacking the Black Box of Interaction.” Perspectives on Politics12: 18–44.
MillerMichael G.SutherlandJoseph L.. 2023. “The Effect of Gender on Interruptions at Congressional Hearings.” American Political Science Review117: 103–121.
64.
MoyerLaura P.HaireSusan B.. 2015. “Trailblazers and Those that Followed: Personal Experiences, Gender, and Judicial Emphathy.” Law & Society Review49 (3): 665–689.
65.
MoyerLaura P.SzmerJohnHaireSusanChristensenRobert K.. 2021. “‘All Eyes Are on You’: Gender, Race, and Opinion Writing on the US Courts of Appeals.” Law & Society Review Review55 (3): 452–472.
66.
NelsonMichael J.HinkleRachael K.. 2018. “Crafting the Law: How Opinion Content Influences Legal Development.” Justice System JournalXX: 1–26.
67.
NorgrenJill. 2013. Rebels at the Bar: The Fascinating, Forgotten Stories of America’s First Women Lawyers. New York University Press.
68.
OsbornTracy L.2012. How Women Represent Women: Political Parties, Gender and Representation in the State Legislatures. Oxford University Press.
69.
OshriOdeliaHarsgorLiranItzkovitch-MalkaReutTuttnauerOr. 2023. “Risk Aversion and the Gender Gap in the Vote for Populist Radical Right Parties.” American Journal of Political Science67 (3): 701–717.
70.
OuniZeinebMansourJamal BenArfaouiSana. 2022. “Corporate Governance and Financial Performance: The Interplay of Board Gender Diversity and Intellectual Capital.” Sustainability14 (22): 15232.
71.
PageScott. 2008. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies-New Edition. Princeton University Press.
72.
PageScott E.2017. The Diversity [Bonus]: How Great Teams Pay off in the Knowledge Economy. Princeton University Press.
73.
PattonDanaSmithJoseph L.. 2017. “Lawyer, Interrupted: Gender Bias in Oral Arguments at the US Supreme Court.” Journal of Law and Courts5: 337–361.
74.
PattonDanaSmithJoseph L.. 2020. “Gender, Ideology, and Dominance in Supreme Court Oral Arguments.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy41: 393–415.
75.
PitkinHanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. University of California Press.
76.
RehnquistWilliam H.2001. The Supreme Court. Alfred A. Knopf.
77.
ReingoldBethHaynieKerry L.WidnerKirsten. 2020. Race, Gender, and Political Representation: Toward a More Intersectional Approach. Oxford University Press.
78.
RhodeDeborah L.1994. “Gender and Professional Roles.” Fordham Law Review63 (1): 39–72.
79.
RhodeDeborah L.2012. “Women and the Path to Leadership.” Michigan State Law Review2012: 1439.
80.
ScheurerKatherine Felix. 2014. “Gender and Voting Decisions in the US Court of Appeals: Testing Critical Mass Theory.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy35 (1): 31–54.
81.
SchneiderMonica C.BosAngela L.. 2019. “The Application of Social Role Theory to the Study of Gender in Politics.” Political Psychology40: 173–213.
82.
SongerDonald R.DavisSueHaireSusan. 1994. “A Re-Appraisal of Diversification in the Federal Courts: Gender Effects in the Courts of Appeals.” The Journal of Politics56: 425–439.
83.
SpriggsJames F.WahlbeckPaul J.. 1997. “Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly50: 365–386.
84.
SzmerJohnGinnMartha Humphries. 2014. “Examining the Effects of Information, Attorney Capability, and Amicus Participation on US Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Politics Research42 (3): 441–471.
85.
SzmerJohn J.SarverTammy A.KahenyErin B.. 2010. “Have We Come a Long Way, Baby? The Influence of Attorney Gender on Supreme Court Decision Making.” Politics & Gender6: 1–36.
86.
SzmerJohnKahenyErin B.SarverTammy A.DeCamillisMason. 2013. “The Impact of Attorney Gender on Decision Making in the United States Courts of Appeal.” Journal of WOmen, Politics, & Policy34: 72–100.
87.
SzmerJohnChristensenRobert K.KahenyErin B.. 2015. “Gender, Race, and Dissensus on State Supreme Courts.” Social Science Quarterly96 (2): 553–575.
88.
SzmerJohn J.KahenyErin B.SarverTammy A.. 2021. ““I Haven’t Come a Long Way, and I’m Not a Baby”: Task Assignment and Diversity of the Supreme Court Bar.” Social Science Quarterly102: 2907–2929.
89.
SzmerJohnMoyerLaura PHaireSusan BChristensenRobert K. 2024. “Who Shapes the Law? Gender and Racial Bias in Judicial Citations.” American Political Science Review118 (2): 1067–1074.
90.
TangShiNadkarniSuchetaWeiLiqunZhangStephen X.. 2021. “Balancing the Yin and Yang: TMT Gender Diversity, Psychological Safety, and Firm Ambidextrous Strategic Orientation in Chinese High-Tech SMEs.” Academy of Management Journal64 (5): 1578–1604.
91.
TashevaSabinaHillmanAmy J.. 2019. “Integrating Diversity at Different Levels: Multilevel Human Capital, Social Capital, and Demographic Diversity and Their Implications for Team Effectiveness.” Academy of Management Review44 (4): 746–765.
92.
ThamesFrank C.WilliamsMargaret S.. 2013. Contagious Representation: Women’s Political Representation in Democracies Around the World. NYU Press.
93.
TillmanElizabeth A.HinkleRachael K.. 2018. “Of Whites and Men: How Gender and Race Impact Authorship of Published and Unpublished Opinions in the US Courts of Appeals.” Research & Politics5: 1–7.
94.
TrudgillPeter. 2011. “Social Structure, Language Contact and Language Change.” In The Sage Handbook of Sociolinguistics, 236–248. Sage.
95.
VallbéJoan JosepRamírez-FolchCarmen. 2023. “The Effect of Judges’ Gender on Decisions Regarding Intimate-Partner Violence.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies20 (3): 641–668.
96.
WaldEli. 2009. “Glass Ceilings and Dead Ends: Professional Ideologies: Gender Stereotypes, and the Future of Women Lawyers at Large Law Firms.” Fordham Law Review78: 2245.
97.
WedekingJustin. 2010. “Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing.” American Journal of Political Science54: 617–631.
98.
WuJieRichardOrlando C.del Carmen TrianaMaríaZhangXinhe. 2022. “The Performance Impact of Gender Diversity in the Top Management Team and Board of Directors: A Multiteam Systems Approach.” Human Resource Management61 (2): 157–180.
99.
XieLuqunZhouJieyuZongQingqingLuQian. 2020. “Gender Diversity in R&D Teams and Innovation Efficiency: Role of Innovation Context.” Research Policy49: 103885.
100.
YangYangTianTanya Y.WoodruffTeresa K.JonesBenjamin F.UzziBrian. 2022. “Gender-Diverse Teams Produce More Novel and Higher-Impact Scientific Ideas.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119 (36): e2200841119.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
