As Supreme Court decisions grow sharper, study examines justices’ concessions
A new study from UMass Amherst researchers suggests that Supreme Court justices use strategic concessions in their dissenting and concurring opinions to maintain influence. By analyzing decades of data, the researchers found that justices often acknowledge majority arguments to build consensus or preserve their standing.
Why it matters
Understanding the internal dynamics and strategic behavior of the Supreme Court provides insight into how legal precedents are shaped.
Recent U.S. Supreme Court terms have seen justices openly accuse one another of rewriting statutes, ignoring precedent and substituting policy preferences for law. Whether in disputes over presidential immunity, administrative power, nationwide injunctions or transgender rights, justices have demonstrated that they aren’t afraid to challenge one another’s reasoning.
However, a new study from political scientists at the University of Massachusetts Amherst suggests those public clashes tell only part of the story.
Analyzing more than six decades of Supreme Court decisions, Donald Snyder , a doctoral candidate in political science, and Caitlyn Pierce , a recent doctoral graduate in political science, found that when justices write dissenting or concurring opinions, they frequently acknowledge the majority’s arguments. The research concludes these concessions don’t just represent collegiality but are strategic efforts to persuade colleagues and preserve influence within the court.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in