Abstract - The Influence of Oral Arguments

In the new issue of the American Political Science Review (Feb. 2006), Timothy Johnson (University of Minnesota), Paul Wahlbeck (George Washington University), and James Spriggs (U.C. Davis) address "The Influence of Oral Arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court." Here is the abstract:

We posit that Supreme Court oral arguments provide justices with useful information that influences their final votes on the merits. To examine the role of these proceedings, we ask the following questions: (1) what factors influence the quality of arguments presented to the Court; and, more importantly, (2) does the quality of a lawyer's oral argument affect the justices' final votes on the merits? We answer these questions by utilizing a unique data source—evaluations Justice Blackmun made of the quality of oral arguments presented to the justices. Our analysis shows that Justice Blackmun's grading of attorneys is somewhat influenced by conventional indicators of the credibility of attorneys and are not simply the product of Justice Blackmun's ideological leanings. We thus suggest they can plausibly be seen as measuring the quality of oral argument. We further show that the probability of a justice voting for a litigant increases dramatically if that litigant's lawyer presents better oral arguments than the competing counsel. These results therefore indicate that this element of the Court's decisional process affects final votes on the merits, and it has implications for how other elite decision makers evaluate and use information.

Comments

[frank cross]

The research makes clear that much of the better oral argument had to do with the quality of the legal argumentation. There was no good way to control for it. The results don't necessarily show that oral argument is influential but does suggest that quality legal argumentation is influential.

[William Henderson]

If I have a better case on the merits, isn't it easier to give a compelling oral argument? I would be interested how they control for merit--well scored oral arguments that resulted in reversals versus well scored oral arguments the produced an affirmance of the lower court?

As a appellate clerk, I was skeptical of the role of oral arguments. But it might be different at the Supreme Court where judges are more consciously making law rather than following it.