Justices on the United States Supreme Court use rhetorical strategies to maintain institutional legitimacy. In the court opinion, a strategy called the monologic voice presents a flattering depiction of the Court. The monologic voice occurs through two tones, the individualistic and collective, which respectively maintain the Justices’ legitimacy through critique and the Court’s legitimacy through unification. We train large language models to identify these rhetorical features in 15,291 modern Supreme Court opinions, issued between 1946 and 2022. While the fraction of collective and individualistic tones has been relatively consistent between 1946 and 2022, the Rehnquist Court used the collective tone at a higher rate than any other Court. In recent terms, 2021 and 2022, we find suggestions of another rhetorical shift, as all Associate Justices of the Roberts Court, excluding Chief Justice Roberts, used the individualistic tone at a historically high rate.
BadasA (2021) The chief justice and judicial legitimacy evidence from the influence of public opinion. Justice System Journal42(2): 150–163.
2.
BalkinJ (2001) Bush V. Gore and the boundary between law and politics. Yale Law Journal110: 1407.
3.
Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968).
4.
CaldeiraGA (1986) Neither the purse nor the sword: Dynamics of public confidence in the supreme court. American Political Science Review80(4): 1209–1226.
5.
CarlsonKLivermoreMARockmoreD (2016) A quantitative analysis of writing style on the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington University Law Review93(6): 1461–1510.
6.
CarlsonKRockmoreDRiddellA, et al (2019) Style and substance on the US Supreme Court. In: LivermoreMARockmoreDN (eds) Law as Data. Santa Fe: Santa Fe Institute Press, pp.83–115.
ClarkTS (2009) The separation of powers, court curbing, and judicial legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science53(4): 971–989.
9.
Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978).
10.
DevlinJChangMWLeeK, et al (2019) BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In: Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), Association for Computational Linguistics, Minneapolis, MN, pp.4171–4186. Available at: https://aclanthology.org/N19-1423 (accessed 1 December 2023).
11.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022).
12.
EpsteinLSegalJA (2000) Measuring issue salience. American Journal of Political Science44(1): 66–83.
FergusonR (1990) The judicial opinion as literary genre. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities2: 201–219.
15.
FettigSCBeneshSC (2016) Be careful with my court: Legitimacy, public opinion, and the Chief Justices. In: WardADanelskiD (eds) The Chief Justice: Appointment and Influence, Chapter 15. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, pp.374–394.
16.
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
GibsonJLCaldeiraGA (2009) Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
GibsonJLLodgeMWoodsonB (2014) Legitimacy, losing, but accepting: A test of positivity theory and the effects of judicial symbols. SSRN. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2448710 (accessed 1 June 2024).
20.
GlennonCStrotherL (2019) The maintenance of institutional legitimacy in Supreme Court Justices’ public rhetoric. Journal of Law and Courts7(2): 241–261.
21.
Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62 (1968).
22.
HallME (2014) The semiconstrained court: Public opinion, the separation of powers, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s fear of nonimplementation. American Journal of Political Science58(2): 352–366.
23.
HausladenCISchubertMHAshE (2020) Text classification of ideological direction in judicial opinions. International Review of Law and Economics62: 105903.
MaltzmanFSpriggsJFWahlbeckPJ (2009) Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (1968).
32.
MarkAZilisMA (2019) The conditional effectiveness of legislative threats: How court curbing alters the behavior of (some) Supreme Court Justices. Political Research Quarterly72(3): 570–583.
33.
MartinADQuinnKM (2002) Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis10(2): 134–153.
34.
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. 185 (2014).
35.
McGinnisJO (2002) Reviving Tocqueville’s America: The Rehnquist Court’s jurisprudence of social discovery. California Law Review90(2): 485–571.
36.
MerrillT (2003) The making of the Second Rehnquist Court: A preliminary analysis. Saint Louis University Law Journal47: 569–658.
37.
Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502 (1966).
38.
MonroeBLColaresiMPQuinnKM (2008) Fightin’ words: Lexical feature selection and evaluation for identifying the content of political conflict. Political Analysis16(4): 372–403.
39.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
40.
RubenfeldJ (2002) The anti-antidiscrimination agenda. The Yale Law Journal111(5): 1141–1178.
41.
SanhVDebutLChaumondJ, et al (2019) DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: Smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1910.01108. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.01108v4 (accessed 1 December 2023).
42.
SchroederC (2001) Causes of the recent turn in constitutional interpretation. Duke Law Journal51(1): 307–361.
43.
SegalJAWesterlandCLindquistSA (2011) Congress, the Supreme Court, and judicial review: Testing a constitutional separation of powers model. American Journal of Political Science55(1): 89–104.
44.
StrotherL (2019) Case salience and the influence of external constraints on the Supreme Court. Journal of Law and Courts7(1): 129–147.
45.
StrotherLGlennonC (2021) An experimental investigation of the effect of Supreme Court Justices’ public rhetoric on perceptions of judicial legitimacy. Law & Social Inquiry46(2): 435–454.
46.
ThalkenRStiglitzEHMimnoD, et al (2023) Modeling legal reasoning: LM annotation at the edge of human agreement. In: BouamorHPinoJBaliK (eds) Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2023). Singapore: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 9252–9265.
47.
TracyK (2009) How questioning constructs judge identities: Oral argument about same-sex marriage. Discourse Studies11(2): 199–221.
48.
TracyK (2016) Discourse, Identity, and Social Change in the Marriage Equality Debates, Chapter Identity-Work in Judicial Opinions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624 (1943).
52.
WilhelmTViningRLBoldtED, et al (2020) Judicial reform in the American states: The chief justice as political advocate. State Politics & Policy Quarterly20(2): 135–156.
