Category: News Feeds

Chappell
Roan
has
recently
gotten
in
trouble
for
calling
out
the
harassers
that
justify
their
behavior
by
being
“super
fans.”

She’s
totally
right.
Parasocial
obsessions
and
celebrity
worship
is
weird
and
doesn’t
excuse
behavior
that
otherwise
would
be
illegal.
Case
in
point:
threatening
to
kidnap,
assault,
and
kill
people
on
Trump’s
behalf.
His
fans
have
been
doing
this
for
a
while,
remember

the
Zip
Tie
Guy
who
sieged
the
Capitol
with
his
mom
in
tow?
It
would
be
great
if
that
extreme
Trumpism
died
out
in
2021,
but
we
aren’t
in
that
timeline.
We’re
in
the
one
where
people
are
getting
caught
threatening
judges
who
dare
to
hold
Trump
to
the
rule
of
law.

Reuters
has
coverage:

A
man
from
Illinois
has
been
charged
with
making
violent
threats
against
a
federal
judge
in
the
Florida
district
that
has
handled
Donald
Trump’s
classified
documents
case,
according
to
an
indictment
made
public
on
Thursday.

Eric
James
Rennert,
65,
is
facing
five
federal
charges
in
the
indictment
which
accuses
him
of
communicating
interstate
threats
and
threatening
to
assault,
kidnap
and
murder
a
federal
judge.

I
know
that
we
all
like
to
play
the
“an
FBI
agent
is
tracking
all
of
the
messages
I
send”
game
whenever
we
compile
a
message
(we
all
just
assume
that
by
now,
right?),
but
if
you
mail
threats
to
a
judge…
the
government
is
definitely
going
to
get
a
hold
of
it!
There
are
better
ways
to
get
catharsis
than
ending
up
in
a
jail
cell.

Like
watching
Josh
Johnson
make
fun
of
Trump.
I
know
that
they’re
at
Trump’s
expense,
but
they
are
just
jokes
after
all.

And
the
reason
he
became
president.

Man
Charged
For
Threatening
US
Judge
In
Florida
District
That
Heard
Trump
Case
[Reuters]

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

I

wrote
several
months
ago that
if
I
had
the
choice
of
voting
for
Donald
Trump
or
a
hot,
stinking
turd,
I’d
vote
for
the
turd.

I
didn’t
want
to
repeat
the
word
“turd”
too
many
times
in
this
post,
so
I’ve
changed
it
to
“grapefruit.”

Who
should
you
vote
for:
Trump
or
a
grapefruit?

Let’s
think
carefully
about
those
two
choices.

On
policy
issues,
it’s
not
close:
The
grapefruit
wins.

A
grapefruit,
unlike
Trump,
would
not
cause
the
United
States
to
withdraw
from
NATO.

A
grapefruit
would
not
try
to
solve
the
problem
of
inflation
by
enacting
20%
across-the-board
tariffs
(which
would
have
the
effect
of
raising
prices).

A
grapefruit
would
not
advocate
for
leaving
the
Trump
tax
cuts
in
place,
which
will
both
dramatically
increase
the
national
debt
and
contribute
to
inflation.

A
grapefruit
would
not
insist
that
Haitians
in
Ohio
eat
pet
dogs,
thus
triggering
bomb
threats
in
Springfield.

A
grapefruit
would
not
cut
off
aid
to
Ukraine.

So
much
for
policy.
What
about
character
issues?
How
does
the
grapefruit
fare
against
Trump
when
we
compare
their
respective
characters?

Grapefruit
are
pale,
round,
and
bitter.
I
guess
the
same
could
be
said
of
Trump. 
(But
grapefruit
are
at
least
thick-skinned.)

A
grapefruit
would
not
say
things
that
caused
it
to
be
civilly
liable
for
defamation.

A
grapefruit
would
not
run
a
company
that
was
then
convicted
of
criminal
tax
fraud.

A
grapefruit
would
not
commit
sexual
assault.

A
grapefruit
would
not
be
convicted
of
34
felonies.

A
grapefruit
would
not
mishandle
confidential
government
documents.

Hmmm.
Are
you
starting
to
see
my
point?

How
about
Trump
versus
grapefruit
on
presidential
proclamations?
Again,
it’s
grapefruit
one;
Trump
zero.

A
grapefruit
would
not
tweet
outrageous
things
every
morning
that
are
meant
to
attract
publicity
to
the
tweeter
personally
and
stoke
divisions
in
America.

A
grapefruit
would
not
insult
members
of
America’s
military.

A
grapefruit
would
not
encourage
people
to
come
to
Washington,
D.C.,
for
a
“wild”
day
in
January
or
give
a
speech
that
encouraged
a
mob
to
attack
the
Capitol
Building.

A
grapefruit
wouldn’t
stand
by
idly
for
three
hours
while
the
Capitol
Building
was
ransacked
by
a
mob.
A
grapefruit
—
being
inanimate
and
all
that
—
wouldn’t
stop
its
staff
from
tweeting
something
suggesting
that
the
mob
should
discontinue
its
attack.

If
a
grapefruit
were
told
that
the
vice
president
was
in
danger,
the
grapefruit
would
not
say,
“So
what?”
The
grapefruit
would
predictably
remain
silent
—
which
isn’t
my
preferred
response,
but
it’s
a
whole
lot
better
than
what
Trump
did.

Lastly,
if
elected,
a
grapefruit
would
not
instruct
the
Department
of
Justice
to
prosecute
me
as
a
political
enemy
because
I’d
written
these
words
at
Above
the
Law.

Some
folks
criticized The
New
York
Times last
week
for
the
structure
of The
Times’
endorsement
of
Kamala
Harris.
Readers
thought
that The
Times
should
have
started
by
emphasizing
the
positives
of
Harris’s
policies,
rather
than
leading
with
criticisms
of
Trump.

I
disagree
with
those
readers: 
It
really
doesn’t
matter
who,
or
what,
opposes
Trump
on
the
ballot.

Whether
it’s
Harris,
or
a
grapefruit,
or
a
turd,
the
choice
is
clear:
Not
Trump.

---

 Mark Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
is
now
deputy
general
counsel
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of



The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].

There
are
many
ways
to
rank
law
schools,
but
the
way
that
the
National
Jurist’s
preLaw
Magazine
does
it
is
quite
interesting.
Rather
than
concentrating
on
the
prestige
factors
that
usually
dominate
law
school
ranking
systems,
this
ranking
focuses
solely
on
factors
that
provide
the
“best
value”
for
students.
That
said,
this
is
a
list
that
is
typically
dominated
by
public
schools,
with
a
smattering
of
private
schools
mixed
in.
Curiously,
for
the
past
few
years,
a
private
school
had
come
out
on
top
of
the
National
Jurist
ranking
—
but
that
stopped
in
2023,
and
the
new
value
victor
continues
to
reign
supreme
in
2024.

Before
we
get
to
the
Top
20
ranking,
let’s
discuss
the
methodology
used
to
suss
out
which
law
schools
are
providing
the
best
value
for
students.
The
National
Jurist’s
ranking
takes
into
account
a
law
school’s
tuition,
students’
cost
of
living
expenses,
students’
average
indebtedness
upon
graduation
(collectively
weighted
55%),
the
percentage
of
graduates
who
got
a
job
after
graduation
(30%),
and
bar
passage
rates
(ultimate
and
two-year
pass
rates)
(15%).

As
noted
previously,
based
on
these
inputs,
the
ranking
tends
to
skew
heavily
towards
public
schools,
but
private
schools
made
a
major
value
comeback
this
year.
One
private
school
cracked
the
Top
20,
while
19
others
followed
behind
later
in
the
ranking.
So
without
further
ado,
here
are
the
National
Jurist’s

Top
20
Best
Value
Law
Schools:

1. University
   of
   Georgia
2. Brigham
   Young
   University
3. University
   of
   Alabama
4. University
   of
   Nebraska
5. Texas
   A&M
   Law
6. University
   of
   Kansas
7. University
   of
   Florida
8. Florida
   State
   University
9. University
   of
   Wisconsin
10. University
    of
    North
    Carolina
11. University
    of
    Missouri
12. George
    Mason
    University
13. University
    of
    Utah
14. University
    of
    Oklahoma
15. University
    of
    Iowa
16. Georgia
    State
    University
17. University
    of
    South
    Dakota
18. University
    of
    Montana
19. University
    of
    Kentucky
20. University
    of
    Tennessee

Peter
“Bo”
Rutledge,
UGA
Law’s
dean,
attributes
the
school’s
success
in
the
2024
Best
Value
ranking
to
using
the
same
measures
(employment,
bar
passage,
costs)
as
a
form
of
accountability.
Here’s
what
that
means
at
UGA:

“For
UGA
School
of
Law,
the
aspiration
has
always
been
to
be
the
nation’s
best
return
on
investment
for
legal
education,
where
the
return
is
measured
by
the
job
opportunities
and
bar
passages
for
students,”
he
said.
“The
investment
is
measured
by
the
indebtedness
of
the
student
body.”

The
lesson
to
be
learned
here
is
simple:
if
you
want
to
keep
your
debt
low,
consider
enrolling
at
a
public
law
school.
If
you
don’t
mind
up
to
a
six-figure
debt
load,
enroll
in
the
best
law
school
you
can
get
into
(let’s
say
the top
50),
because
those
are
the
schools
where
you’ll
be
able
to
get
jobs
that
will
allow
you
to
service
your
loans.

Congrats
to
the
law
schools
that
offer
their
students
the
“best
value.”

Best
Value
Law
Schools
[prelaw
Magazine
/
National
Jurist]

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Today
is
the

First
Monday
in
October,
which,
as
Supreme
Court
watchers
know,
is
the
start
of
the
High
Court’s
new
Term.
The
Court
will,
again,

tackle
issues that
will
shape
the
very
fabric
of
life
in
America.
Given
the
import
of
nine
individuals,
it’s
worth
looking
at
exactly
who
has
a
lifetime
appointment
to
the
High
Court
—
and
who
they
choose
to
associate
with.

The
Intercept’s
Shawn
Musgrave published
an
in-depth
look
at
the
relationship
between
Justice
Samuel
Alito
and
Mark
Martin.

But
first,
the
seemingly
obvious
question,

who
is
Mark
Martin?
The

dean
of
High
Point
University’s
law
school
was
previously
Chief
Justice
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
North
Carolina,
Associate
Judge
on
the
North
Carolina
Court
of
Appeals,
dean
and
professor
of
law
at
Regent
University
School
of
Law…
and
he
advised
Donald
Trump
on
how
to
overturn
the
results
of
the
2020
election.
That’s
right,
Martin
was
the
brains

behind
the
theory
that
the
Vice
President
could
just
choose
not
to
certify
the
election
results
on
January
6th.
Trump
told
Mike
Pence
he
“had
spoken
with
Mark
Martin,
the
former
chief
justice
of
the
North
Carolina
Supreme
Court,
who
he
said
had
told
him
that
Mr.
Pence
had
that
power
(to
reject
the
Electoral
College
votes
on
January
6th
2021).”
All
of
which
resulted
in
effigies
of
Pence
during
the
attempted
coup
that
day.

Even
after
Martin’s
high-profile
role
in
trying
to
subvert
democracy
by
promulgating

piss-poor
legal
takes,
Alito
was
teaching
a
small
seminar
with
him.

Just
20
days
after
the
insurrection,
Martin
had
another
intimate
audience
with
another
powerful
right-winger:
He
taught
a
three-day
seminar
on
constitutional law with
U.S.
Supreme
Court
Justice
Samuel
Alito for Regent
University
Law
School
in
Virginia,
where
Martin
was
the
dean
at
the
time.

In
fact,
for
three
years
in
a
row,
Alito
taught
“Select
Issues
in
Constitutional
Interpretation”
with
Martin.

By
his
own
account,
teaching
with
Alito
is
one
of
the
pinnacles
of
Martin’s
career.

Asked
recently
about
the
biggest
challenges
and
rewards
in
moving
from
the
judiciary
into
legal
education,
Martin highlighted that
he
“even
was
able
to
co-teach
a
law
course
with
U.S.
Supreme
Court
Justice
Sam
Alito
for
three
years
in
a
row.”
(In
the
same
softball
interview,
Martin
dodged
questions
about
January
6,
citing
“confidentiality.”)

Martin’s online
biography for
the
Federalist
Society
lists
his
seminars
with
Alito
among
many
other
achievements
and
honors.
Martin
recently
added
the
Alito
seminars
to his
bio on
the
High
Point
University
website,
where
he
has
been
law
school
dean
since
leaving
Regent
in
2022.

As
Gabe
Roth,
executive
director
of
Fix
the
Court,
said,
“It
was
and
continues
to
be
a
shock
to
the
system
knowing
that
the
upper
echelons
of
the
legal
community
used
their
legal
talents
to
subvert
the
will
of
the
people
and
that
Supreme
Court
justices
of
all
people
are
friends
with
these
individuals.”

This
isn’t
the
first
time
Alito
has
made
his
controversial
politics
apparent.
Though
he
blamed
it
on

his
wife,
in
the
days
following
the
insurrection
Alito’s
home
was
seen

flying
a
flag
favored
by
insurrectionists.
And
his
vacation
home
on
Long
Beach
Island,
New
Jersey,
flew an
“Appeal
to
Heaven”
flag. The
flag
dates
back
to
the
Revolutionary
War,
but
has
seen
a
resurgence
in
popularity
as
a
symbol
of
Christian
nationalism
and
support
for
Donald
Trump.

Alito
was
also caught
on
tape saying
there
are
“fundamental
things
that
really
can’t
be
compromised”
with
the
left.
And
that
he
thinks
the
country
needs
to
return
to
a
place
of
godliness.

But
none
of
this
will
convince
Alito
to
recuse
himself
when
his
clearly
expressed
political
views
come
before
the
Court
because

he’s
beyond
shame.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

Ed.
note:
This
is
the
third
article
in
a
series
providing
a
comprehensive
guide
to
networking
at
conferences.
Read
the

first
here
and
the

second
here. 

As
we
glide
further
into
“Conquering
Conferences,”
the
focus
shifts
to
the
complex
waltz
of
group
networking
—
particularly,
dealing
with
the
dreaded
conversation
“dominators.” 

Just
like
at
a
high
school
dance
where
there’s
often
that
one
person
trying
to
be
the
center
of
attention
on
the
dance
floor,
in
networking
groups,
you
might
come
across
the
“dominator”
—
someone
who
tends
to
monopolize
the
conversation.

Here’s
how
to
gently
sway
the
rhythm
of
the
group
conversation
and
ensure
everyone
gets
a
chance
to
contribute:

1. 
   Acknowledging
   and
   Redirecting:
   Politely
   acknowledge
   the
   dominator’s
   point
   and
   then
   smoothly
   transition
   the
   spotlight
   to
   another
   person.
2. 
   Using
   Open-Ended
   Questions:
   Pose
   open-ended
   questions
   that
   invite
   diverse
   opinions,
   shifting
   the
   focus
   from
   the
   dominator
   and
   encouraging
   quieter
   members
   to
   step
   onto
   the
   dance
   floor.
3. 
   Seeking
   Out
   Quieter
   Voices:
   Encouraging
   quieter
   group
   members
   to
   share
   their
   thoughts
   can
   change
   the
   dynamic
   of
   the
   conversation.
4. 
   Setting
   a
   Cooperative
   Tone:
   Emphasize
   the
   value
   of
   hearing
   a
   variety
   of
   viewpoints
   to
   encourage
   collaborative
   participation.
5. 
   One-on-One
   Approach:
   If
   the
   group
   setting
   feels
   too
   dominated,
   consider
   pulling
   someone
   aside
   for
   a
   one-on-one
   conversation
   later.
   This
   allows
   for
   more
   meaningful
   interactions
   without
   the
   overshadowing
   presence.

Maneuvering
group
dynamics
is
just
one
part
of
the
networking
dance.

Up
next,
we’ll
explore
how
to
keep
the
rhythm
of
your
conversations
flowing
and
vibrant,
ensuring
each
interaction
at
the
conference
is
as
engaging
as
a
well-choreographed
dance
routine.

Handling
the
‘Dance
Floor
Dominator’

✔️
Use
tactful
techniques
to
ensure
balanced
participation
in
group
conversations.


✔️ Redirect
focus
and
encourage
quieter
members
to
share
their
thoughts.

---

Sejal Patel is
the Founder
of
Sage
Ivy,
a
New
York-based
consultancy
specializing
in
empowering
attorneys
with
innovative
practice
development
strategies.
With
over
20
years
of
experience,
Sejal
applies
her
expertise
in
assisting
clients
convert
their
relationships
into
revenue
by
applying
individualized
strategies
to
their
networks
and
leveraging
their
unique
styles
authentically.  

Between
the
2004
and
2019
Supreme
Court
Terms,
Justice
Thomas
spoke
in
five
oral
arguments
for
a
total
of
fewer
than
200
words.
In
that
window
of
time
he
chose
not
to
speak
in
over
1,100
arguments. 
In
that
same
timeframe,
Justice
Breyer
spoke
over
320,000
words
at
oral
argument. 
During
those
same
years,
Justice
Thomas
authored
a
combined
417
majority
and
separate
opinions
compared
with
Justice
Breyer’s
319.
This
comparison
highlights
an
underdiscussed
element
of
Supreme
Court
behavior
–
that
of
the
relationship
between
oral
argument
speech
and
opinion
engagement.

Several
camps
emerged
in
the
1990’s
and
early
2000’s
looking
to
understand
the
justices’
goals
in
oral
arguments.
Those
like
Epstein
and
Knight
on
one
hand
and
Segal
and
Spaeth
on
the
other
posited
preference
based
arguments
that
focused
on
how
justices
are
goal-oriented
in
both
oral
arguments
and
with
their
opinion
writing,
with
policy
preferences
driving
their
decisions.

Tim
Johnson
wrote
several
pieces
that
focused
on
multiple
dimensions
of
oral
arguments
ranging
from
how
they
can
be
used
to
predict
case
outcomes
to
the
justices’
other
goals.
In
the
vein
of
information
gain, Johnson’s
work describes
how
the
justices
seek
comprehensive
information
during
oral
arguments
to
help
them
make
informed
decisions
that
align
with
their
goals
while
adhering
to
institutional
norms.
Briefs
provide
a
substantial
amount
of
information,
yet
they
also
reflect
the
argument
positions
of
the
litigants
and
so
they
are
often
biased
in
that
regard,
which
underscores
the
importance
of
justices
seeking
additional
perspectives
to
inform
their
decisions.

According
to
Johnson
and
others,
oral
arguments
are
a
critical
venue
for
justices
to
gather
information
that
is
independent
of
the
potentially
biased
materials
found
in
briefs.
Justices
can
ask
questions
during
these
proceedings
to
clarify
issues
and
obtain
insights
that
might
not
be
included
in
the
written
submissions.
Johnson’s
articles
demonstrate
that
a
portion
of
the
issues
in
majority
opinions
are
raised
uniquely
during
oral
arguments.
This
finding
supports
the
idea
that
oral
arguments
introduce
new
issues
that
may
not
have
been
considered
previously.

Justices
may
also
use
oral
arguments
to
gain
insight
into
the
positions
of
their
colleagues
on
the
Court
and
may
even
attempt
to
convince
them
to
join
along
with
their
preferred
position
on
the
merits.

The
Focus

This
article
looks
at
three
relationships
between
oral
arguments
and
written
decisions:
first
between
the
extent
of
a
justice’s
engagement
in
oral
argument
and
the
decision
to
author
an
opinion
at
all,
second
between
the
extent
of
oral
argument
engagement
and
the
extent
of
written
engagement
in
the
same
cases,
and
third
between
the
language
justices
use
at
oral
argument
and
what
they
write
in
their
decisions.

The
first
two
measures
–
between
the
extent
of
oral
argument
speech
and
the
choice
with
whether
to
write
at
all
and
if
so
how
much
–
are
performed
by
looking
at
the
correlations
in
these
aspects
of
engagement.
The
third
–
the
language
similarity
aspect
uses
cosine
similarity

If
justices
who
speak
more
tend
to
write
more
comprehensive
opinions
or
write
opinions
at
all,
it
may
suggest
a
direct
connection
between
the
justices’
oral
discourse
during
proceedings
and
their
written
analyses.
Examining
the
similarity
between
the
language
used
in
oral
arguments
and
written
opinions
can
shed
light
on
how
justices
frame
their
thoughts
and
arguments.
If
their
language
is
consistent
across
both
formats,
it
may
indicate
a
deliberate
effort
to
maintain
coherence
between
what
they
say
and
do.

To
construct
this
measure
of
similarity
the
algorithm
looks
at
each
justice’s
words
in
each
oral
argument
transcript
and
corresponding
opinion
and
counts
how
many
times
each
word
appears
after
removing
“stop
words”
which
hold
little
to
no
information
value. 
Then
it
counts
how
many
times
each
word
appears
in
both
documents.
Cosine
similarity
looks
at
these
two
lists
and
checks
how
similar
they
are.

The
data
used
are
oral
arguments
transcripts
and
opinions
from
the
2004
through
the
2022
Supreme
Court
terms.
The
oral
argument
transcripts
were
supplied
by
Jake
Truscott’s
compilation
via
his
R
based
tool SCOTUSText. 
The
justices
of
focus
are
the
nine
on
the
current
Court
and
the
most
recent
retiree,
Justice
Breyer. 
These
data
are
provided
on
the
justice
level,
thereby
breaking
these
patterns
down
to
focus
on
individual
behavior
along
with
that
of
the
justices
generally.

Understanding
these
relationships
may
reveal
strategic
behavior
in
how
justices
use
oral
arguments
to
influence
their
colleagues
or
shape
public
perception.
A
justice
who
uses
more
persuasive
language
during
arguments
may
also
adopt
similar
rhetoric
in
their
opinions,
suggesting
a
conscious
strategy
to
convey
specific
innuendo.

Findings

The
first
analysis
looks
at
the
likelihood
of
a
justice
authoring
an
opinion
at
all,
based
the
volume
of
their
speech
at
oral
argument.
The
plot
is
a
combination
of
a
bar
and
box
plot
with
confidence
intervals
in
black.

Justice
Kavanaugh
exhibited
the
highest
correlation
with
.294
(with
a
p-value
of
.000112)
indicating
a
statistically
significant
relationship.
This
means
that
as
Kavanaugh
speaks
more,
the
likelihood
of
authoring
a
decision
in
the
same
case
increases
markedly. 
Justices
Alito
and
Kagan
both
showed
significant
correlations
of
.226.
This
indicates
that
their
speaking
practices
are
also
closely
tied
to
the
eventual
written
decisions. 
Conversely,
Justice
Roberts
presented
a
negligible
correlation
of
.00519
indicating
no
significant
relationship
between
his
speech
and
the
presence
of
a
written
opinion.

The
overall
correlation
across
all
justices
between
the
volume
of
speech
and
the
presence
of
written
decisions
is
low
(.0431).
This
finding
underscores
the
notion
that,
on
average,
the
amount
of
speech
produced
does
not
significantly
predict
the
presence
of
written
decisions
among
the
justices
collectively.
This
also
implies
that
individual
justices’
relationships
on
this
front
vary
widely
in
terms
of
when
opinions
are
ultimately
rendered.

Moving
forward
along
the
same
train
of
thought,
the
next
figure
looks
at
the
relationship
between
the
amount
of
oral
argument
speech
and
the
length
of
opinions
when
authored.

Based
on
arguments
where
each
justice
engaged
at
all,
Justice
Jackson
had
the
highest
average
number
of
words
spoken,
followed
by
Justices
Kagan
and
Breyer.
Justice
Thomas
had
the
lowest
number
of
average
words
in
oral
argument
with
308.6. 
Looking
at
decision
length,
Justice
Breyer
had
the
highest
average
length
with
5623.59
words. 
Justice
Barrett
with
2331.58
words
per
decision
had
the
least
words
on
average.

The
overall
correlation
between
words
spoken
and
words
written
across
justices
is
.2316
indicating
a
weak
positive
correlation.
This
suggests
that,
in
general,
justices
who
tend
to
speak
more
during
oral
arguments
also
tend
to
write
longer
decisions,
but
the
relationship
is
not
very
strong.

Justices
Jackson
and
Kagan
have
high
average
oral
argument
word
counts
and
relatively
high
average
decision
lengths,
indicating
a
robust
engagement
in
both
oral
arguments
and
written
opinions.
Thomas
who
notably
has
lower
engagement
in
oral
arguments,
produces
a
differentially
high
word
count
in
opinions.
While
the
correlation
indicates
a
relationship
between
speaking
amount
and
decision
length,
it
also
highlights
that
the
relationship
is
not
strong
enough
to
conclude
that
higher
speaking
amounts
directly
lead
to
longer
written
opinions.
Factors
such
as
the
nature
of
the
cases,
individual
styles
of
writing,
and
the
complexities
involved
in
each
decision
likely
contribute
to
the
observed
outcomes.

The
last
figure
shows
the
relationship
between
the
similarity
in
language
used
in
oral
argument
and
written
decisions.

The
plot
shows
the
median
similarity
per
justice
with
a
red
dot
with
other
datapoints
around
them
showing
different
levels
of
similarity.
The
bulk
of
the
observations
by
justice
are
in
the
thicker
hubs
in
a
similar
manner
to
a
box
plot,
with
the
outliers
towards
the
edges.

Justice
Jackson
had
the
highest
average
similarity
.782,
suggesting
that
her
language
is
most
similar
between
oral
argument
and
decision
text.
Justices
Alito
and
Sotomayor
also
have
relatively
high
average
similarities
(.748
and
.720,
respectively).
Justice
Thomas
has
the
lowest
average
similarity
(.599),
indicating
a
lower
alignment
between
his
word
choice
in
oral
argument
and
decision
text
compared
to
other
justices.

Concluding
Thoughts

The
general
insights
from
these
results
highlight
the
variability
in
how
justices
engage
with
both
oral
arguments
and
written
opinions,
reflecting
different
approaches.
First,
there
appears
to
be
a
notable
distinction
between
justices
who
actively
engage
in
oral
arguments
and
those
who
are
more
reserved
in
that
setting,
with
some
justices
demonstrating
a
clear
connection
between
how
much
they
speak
and
their
likelihood
to
author
opinions.
This
suggests
that
for
some
justices,
speaking
in
oral
arguments
may
serve
as
an
important
aspect
of
their
decision-making
process.

Second,
the
weak
but
present
correlation
between
the
amount
spoken
in
oral
arguments
and
the
length
of
written
opinions
suggests
that
while
there
is
some
connection
between
oral
and
written
engagement,
it
is
not
a
strong
or
consistent
one.

Lastly,
the
variation
in
language
similarity
between
oral
arguments
and
written
opinions
underscores
differences
in
how
justices
approach
communication
in
these
two
formats.
Justices
who
exhibit
higher
language
similarity
may
strive
for
consistency
in
how
they
present
their
ideas
in
both
settings,
possibly
reflecting
a
strategic
effort
to
ensure
coherence.
Conversely,
justices
with
lower
similarity
might
adapt
their
language
for
different
contexts
—
perhaps
viewing
oral
arguments
as
more
dynamic
and
fluid,
while
treating
written
opinions
as
more
formal.

This
variability
highlights
that
there
is
no
one-size-fits-all
pattern
in
how
justices
move
from
oral
argument
to
written
decision,
with
some
showing
strong
connections
between
the
two
and
others
exhibiting
more
independence
in
their
methods
of
engagement.

Knowledge
of
how
justices
engage
in
oral
arguments
compared
to
their
written
opinions
can
inform
legal
practitioners
on
how
to
better
present
cases.
Understanding
which
justices
favor
oral
discourse
may
guide
attorneys
in
tailoring
their
arguments.

Researching
these
relationships
can
contribute
to
a
more
comprehensive
understanding
of
judicial
behavior
by
bridging
gaps
in
existing
literature
on
how
oral
arguments
influence
judicial
outcomes
and
enhance
the
understanding
of
the
Supreme
Court’s
decision-making
as
a
complex
interplay
of
verbal
and
written
communication.

---

Adam
Feldman
runs
the
litigation
consulting
company
Optimized
Legal
Solutions
LLC.
For
more
information
write
Adam
at [email protected]. Find
him
on
Twitter: @AdamSFeldman.

When
one
government
regulatory
door
closes,
another
Biglaw
partnership
door
opens.

Gurbir
Grewal,
who
has
served
as
Director
of
the
Division
of
Enforcement
for
the
Securities
and
Exchange
Commission
since
2021,
will
be
leaving
his
government
role
at
the
end
of
the
week
and
heading
to
Milbank.

Bloomberg
Law
has
a
few
additional
details:

Grewal
will
work
out
of
Milbank’s
New
York
office
as
a
partner
in
the
litigation
and
arbitration
practice,
according
to
one
of
the
people,
who
asked
not
to
be
identified
as
the
plans
haven’t
been
made
public.

As
part
of
his
work
with
the
financial
agency,
Grewal
led
major
enforcement
actions
against
crypto
exchanges,
claiming
that
they’d
listed
unregistered
securities.
Prior
to
joining
the
SEC,
Grewal
served
as
New
Jersey’s
attorney
general,
and
was
the
the
first
Sikh-American
AG
in
U.S.
history.
Before
becoming
the
Garden
State’s
attorney
general,
he
served
as
chief
of
the
Economic
Crimes
Unit
at
the
U.S.
Attorney’s
Office
for
the
District
of
New
Jersey.

Congratulations
to
Gurbir
Grewal
on
his
move
to
private
practice
at
Milbank,
where
he’ll
enjoy
profits
per
equity
partner
of
up
to
$5.1
million!

Departing
SEC
Enforcement
Chief
Grewal
to
Join
Milbank
Law
Firm
[Bloomberg
Law]

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Above The Law In your inbox

Subscribe and get breaking news, commentary, and opinions on law firms, lawyers, law schools, lawsuits, judges, and more.

We will never sell or share your information without your consent. See our privacy policy.