Hostname: page-component-669899f699-2mbcq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-05T05:33:26.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Justices and Legal Clarity: Analyzing the Complexity of U.S. Supreme Court Opinions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Ryan J. Owens  and
Justin P. Wedeking
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Legal clarity is important to understand and measure because of its connection to the rule of law. We provide the first systematic examination of the clarity of Supreme Court opinions and discover five important results. First, certain justices systematically craft clearer opinions than others. Justices Scalia and Breyer write the clearest opinions, while Justice Ginsburg consistently writes the most complex opinions. Second, ideology does not predict clarity in majority or concurring opinions. Third, all justices write clearer dissents than majority opinions, while minimum winning coalitions produce the clearest majority opinions. Fourth, justices across the board write clearer opinions in criminal procedure cases than in any other issue area. Finally, opinions that formally alter Court precedent render less clear law, potentially leading to a cycle of legal ambiguity.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 1027 - 1061
Copyright
© 2011 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Owens thanks the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University for its financial support. Both authors thank Scott Bauries and Phillip Wininger for comments on the manuscript and Shea Sheppard for research assistance.

References

Anders, David B. (1992) “Justices Harlan and Black Revisited: The Emerging Dispute between Justice O'Connor and Justice Scalia over Unenumerated Fundamental Rights,” 61 Fordham Law Rev. 895–933.Google Scholar
Axelrod, Robert M. (1970) Conflict of Interest: A Theory of Divergent Goals with Applications to Politics. Chicago, IL: Markham Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Baird, Vanessa A. (2004) “The Effect of Politically Salient Decisions on the U.S. Supreme Court's Agenda,” 66 Journal of Politics 755–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergara, Mario, Richman, Barak, & Spiller, Pablo T. (2003) “Modeling Supreme Court Decision Making: The Congressional Constraint,” 28 Legislative Studies Q. 247–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Alexander, M. (1962) The Least Dangerous Branch. New Haven, CT: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul (1983) “Another Look at Freshman Indecisiveness on the United States Supreme Court,” 16 Polity 320–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr. (2008) Friends of the Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C. (2008) “The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Influence of Parties' Briefs,” 61 Political Research Q. 468–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cray, Ed, ed. (1997) Chief Justice: A Biography of Earl Warren. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Dickey, Walter, Schultz, David, & Fullin, James L. (1989) “The Importance of Clarity in the Law of Homicide: The Wisconsin Revision,” 1989 Wisconsin Law Rev. 1323–1394.Google Scholar
Dolbeare, Kenneth, & Hammond, Phillip E. (1971) The School Prayer Decisions from Court Policy to Local Practice. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, William O. (1960) America Challenged. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1986) Law's Empire. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Friedman, Barry, & Staudt, Nancy (2008) “On the Capacity of the Roberts Court to Generate Consequential Precedent,” 86 North Carolina Law Rev. 1299–1332.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee & Knight, Jack (1998) The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee & Segal, Jeffrey A. (2000) “Measuring Issue Salience,” 44 American J. of Political Science 66–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Michael, et al. (2006) “Recounting the Courts? Applying Automated Content Analysis to Enhance Empirical Legal Research,” Paper presented at the 2006 Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, August 28th 2006 in Austin, Texas.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faigman, David L. (1992) “Constitutional Adventures in Wonderland: Exploring the Debate Between Rules and Standards through the Looking Glass of the First Amendment,” 44 Hastings Law J. 829.Google Scholar
Friedman, Barry (2002) “The History of the Countermajoritarian Difficulty, Party Two: Reconstruction's Political Court,” 91 Georgetown Law J. 1–65.Google Scholar
Fuller, Lon (1964) The Morality of Law. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Gates, John B., & Phelps, Glenn A. (1996) “Intentionalism in Constitutional Opinions,” 48 Political Research Q. 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A., & Baird, Vanessa A. (1998) “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts,” 92 American Political Science Rev. 343–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruenfeld, Deborah H. (1995) “Status, Ideology, and Integrative Complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court: Rethinking the Politics of Political Decision Making,” 68 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruenfeld, Deborah H. & Preston, Jared (2000) “Upending the Status Quo: Cognitive Complexity in U.S. Supreme Court Justices Who Overturn Legal Precedent,” 26 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1013–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagle, Timothy M. (1993) “‘Freshman Effects' for Supreme Court Justices,” 37 American J. of Political Science 1142–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansford, Thomas G., & Spriggs, James F. II (2006) The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, Herbert L. A. (1963) Law, Liberty, and Morality. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, Anna, & Friedman, Barry (2006) “Pulling Punches: Congressional Constraint on the Supreme Court's Constitutional Rulings, 1987–2000,” 31 Legislative Studies Q. 533–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heck, Edward V., & Hall, Melinda Gann (1981) “Bloc Voting and the Freshman Justice Revisited,” 43 J. of Politics 852–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, J. Woodford Jr. (1968) “On the Fluidity of Judicial Choice,” 62 American Political Science Rev. 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurwitz, Mark S., & Stefko, Oseph V. (2004) “Acclimation and Attitudes: “Newcomer” Justices and Precedent Conformance on the Supreme Court,” 57 Political Research Q. 121–129.Google Scholar
Kaplow, Louis (1992) “Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis,” 42 Duke Law J. 557–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Jack, & Epstein, Lee (1996) “The Norm of Stare Decisis,” 40 American Journal of Political Science 1018–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korobkin, Russell B. (2000) “Behavioral Analysis and Legal Form: Rules vs. Standards Revisited,” 79 Oregon Law Rev. 23.Google Scholar
Law, David S., & Zaring, David (2010) “Law Versus Ideology: The Supreme Court and the Use of Legislative History,” 51 William and Mary Law Rev. 1–62.Google Scholar
Lewis, David E. (2003) Presidents and the Politics of Agency Design: Political Insulation in the United States Government Bureaucracy, 1946–1997. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, Spriggs, James F. II, & Wahlbeck, Paul J. (2000) Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., & Quinn, Kevin M. (2002) “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999,” 10 Political Analysis 134–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry M. (1989) “The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure,” in Chubb, John E., & Peterson, Paul E., eds., Can the Government Govern? Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. (1964) Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Newman, Matthew L, et al. (2003) “Lying Words: Predictin Deception From Linguistic Styles,” 29 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 665–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakes, James L. (1992) “Keynote Address-Conference on Compelling Government Interests: Introduction by Hon. James L. Oakes,” 55 Albany Law Rev. 535–538.Google Scholar
Overton, Spencer (2002) “Rules, Standards, and Bush v. Gore: Form and the Law of Democracy,” 37 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Rev. 65–102.Google Scholar
Owens, Ryan (2010) “The Separation of Powers and Supreme Court Agenda Setting,” 54 American Journal of Political Science 412–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennebaker, James W., & King, Laura A. (1999) “Linguistic Styles: Language Use as an Individual Difference,” 77 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1296–1312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennebaker, James W. & Lay, Thomas C. (2002) “Linguistic Styles: Language Use and Personality During Crises: Analyses of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's Press Conferences,” 36 J. of Research in Personality 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennebaker, James W., Mayne, Tracy J., & Francis, Martha E. (1997) “Linguistic Predictors of Adaptive Bereavement,” 72 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 863–871.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennebaker, James W., Slachter, Richard B., & Chung, Cindy K. (2005) “Linguistic Markers of Psychological State through Media Interviews: John Kerry and John Edwards in 2004, Al Gore in 2000,” 5(1) Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelps, Glenn A., & Gates, John B. (1991) “The Myth of Jurisprudence: Interpretative Theory in the Constitutional Opinions of Justice Rehnquist and Brennan,” 31 Santa Clara Law Rev. 567–596.Google Scholar
Posner, Eric A. (1997) “Standards, Rules, and Social Norms,” 21 Harvard J. of Law and Public Policy 101.Google Scholar
Priest, George L., & Klein, Benjamin (1984) “The Selection of Disputes for Litigation,” 13 J. of Legal Studies 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radin, Margaret Jane (1989) “Reconsidering the Rule of Law,” 69 Boston University Law Rev. 781.Google Scholar
Rehnquist, William H. (1987) The Supreme Court: How It Was, How It Is. New York: William Morrow and Company.Google Scholar
Rehnquist, William H. (1992) “Remarks on the Process of Judging,” 49 Washington and Lee Law Rev. of Economic Studies 263–270.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. (1972) “Policy Goals, Strategic, Choice and Majority Opinion Assignments in the U. S. Supreme Court,” 16 Midwest J. of Political Science 652–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Jeffrey (2001) “A Majority of One,” The New York Times Section 6: Column 1: June 3, 32.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald N. (1991) The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rubin, Edward L. (2008) “Question Regarding D.C. v. Heller: As a Justice, Antonin Scalia Is (A) Great, (B) Acceptable, (C) Injudicious,” 54 The Wayne Law Rev. 1105–1130.Google Scholar
Sala, Brian R., & Spriggs, James F. II (2004) “Designing Tests of the Supreme Court and the Separation of Powers,” 57 Political Research Q. 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scalia, Antonin S. (1989) “The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules,” 56 University of Chicago Law Rev. 1175–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scalia, Antonin S. (1998) “Dissents,” 13 OAH Magazine of History 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schauer, Frederick (1991) “Rules and the Rule of Law,” 14 Harvard J. of Law and Public Policy 645.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Bernard (1983) Super Chief: Earl Warren and His Supreme Court, a Judicial Biography. New York: New York Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. (1997) “Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts,” 91 American Political Science Rev. 28–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. & Spaeth, Harold J. (2002) The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Steven S. (1989) Call to Order: Floor Politics in the House and Senate. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
Sorauf, Frank J. (1959) “Zorach v. Clauson: The Impact of a Supreme Court Decision,” 53 American Political Science Rev. 777–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. (2008a) “Expanded Burger Court Judicial Database,” http://www.cas.sc.edu/poli/juri/sct.htm: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. (2008b) “The Original United States Supreme Court Judicial Database 1953–2007 Terms,” Downloaded from JURI, University of South Carolina in 2008, http://scdb.wustl.edu/index.php.Google Scholar
Spiller, Pablo T., & Gely, Rafael (1992) “Congressional Control or Judicial Independence: The Determinants of U.S. Supreme Court Labor-Relations Decisions, 1949–1988,” 23 RAND Journal of Economics 463–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spriggs, James F. II (1996) “The Supreme Court and Federal Administrative Agencies: A Resource-Based Theory and Analysis of Judicial Impact,” 40 American J. of Political Science 1122–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staton, Jeffrey K., & Vanberg, Georg (2008) “The Value of Vagueness, Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions,” 52 American J. of Political Science 504–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staudt, Nancy, Friedman, Barry, & Epstein, Lee (2008) “On the Role of Ideological Homogeneity in Generating Consequential Constitutional Decisions,” 10 University of Pennsylvania J. of Constitutional Law 361–386.Google Scholar
Stirman, Shannon W., & Pennebaker, James W. (2001) “Word Use in the Poetry of Suicidal and Non-Suicidal Poets,” 63 Psychosomatic Medicine 517–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suedfeld, Peter, & Rank, A. Dennis (1976) “Revolutionary Leaders: Long-Term Success as a Function of Changes in Conceptual Complexity,” 34 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulam, Ian (2010) “Editor In Chief: Opinion Authorship and Clerk Inuence on the Supreme Court,” Unpublished paper presented at the 2010 Midwestern Political Science Association Conference, Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Kathleen M. (1992) “The Justices of Rules And Standards,” 106 Harvard Law Rev. 22–123.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. (1996) “Forward: Leaving Things Undecided,” 110 Harvard Law Rev. 4–101.Google Scholar
Tausczik, Yla R., & Pennebaker, James W. (2010) “The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods,” 29 J. of Language and Social Psychology 24–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E. (1981a) “Personality and Isolationism: Content Analysis of Senatorial Speeches,” 41 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 737–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E. (1981b) “Pre- to Postelection Shifts in Presidential Rhetoric: Impression Management or Cognitive Adjustment?,” 41 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 207–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E. (1984) “Cognitive Style and Political Belief Systems in the British House of Commons,” 46 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 365–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E., Bernzweig, Jane, & Gallant, Jack L. (1985) “Supreme Court Decision Making: Cognitive Style as a Predictor of Ideological Consistency of Voting,” 48 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 1227–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thayer, James B. (1901) John Marshall. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul J., Spriggs, James F. II, & Sigelman, Lee (2002) “Ghostwriters on the Court? A Stylistic Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court Draft Opinions,” 30 American Politics Research 166–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wald, Patricia M. (1995) “The Rhetoric and Results of Rhetoric: Judicial Writings,” 62 University of Chicago Law Rev. 1371–1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Artemus, & Weiden, David L. (2006) Sorcerers' Apprentices: 100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States Supreme Court. New York: New York Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, Bob, & Armstrong, Scott (1979) The Brethern: Inside the Supreme Court. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Wright, Ronald F., & Hall, Mark A. (2008) “Systematic Content Analysis of Judicial Opinions,” 96 California Law Rev. 63–122.Google Scholar
Zullow, Harold M., et al. (1988) “Pessimistic Explanatory Style in the Historical Record,” 43 American Psychologist 673–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar