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.
Read more about their study here.