Sotomayor, Kagan Are Interrupted the Most at Oral Arguments: Study
Since 2010, according to a newly updated study, female justices have been disproportionately interrupted in every term. In the 2016 term, for the first time, the ratio of female to male interruptions exceeded 2:1.
August 07, 2018 at 10:55 AM
5 minute read
In the U.S. Supreme Court term that just ended, male justices interrupting female justices during oral arguments was at its second highest rate in 20 years, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan the most regularly cut off, according to an updated study.
The study, conducted by Tonja Jacobi of Northwestern University School of Law and Matthew Sag of Loyola University Chicago School of Law, covered the 2016 and 2017 terms and extended previous data to 20 years. Their earlier study showed that female Supreme Court justices are interrupted three times as often as the male justices, by both male justices and male advocates at oral argument.
Jacobi and Sag focused only on justice-to-justice interruptions for their update. Since 2010, they report, female justices have been disproportionately interrupted in every term. But in the 2016 term, for the first time, the ratio of female to male interruptions exceeded 2:1, and the ratio exceeded 2:1 again in the 2017 term.
Jacobi said comments by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sotomayor after the earlier study was published indicated the court's behavior might change. Sotomayor said at a June event that the study had changed “some of the dynamics on the court.”
But the latest numbers don't bear out those comments, Jacobi said.
“I was really hoping to show the study has had an effect, but we still see the same path of highly gendered interruption,” Jacobi said.
The interruptions of Kagan and Sotomayor are driving the ongoing gender tilt of the Roberts court, according to Sag. Even adding Justice Stephen Breyer—the third most interrupted justice in the 2017 term—the gender differential is considerable.
In the 2017 term, conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony Kennedy, interrupted their colleagues at three times the rate of liberal justices.
The number of interruptions overall has been increasing steadily in the last two decades: between 25 and 50 each term in the early 1990s and 2000s, according to the study.
During the Roberts court, the number has not dropped below 50, with the exception of the 2016 term when the court labored with eight justices. In the 2017 term, the number of interruptions exceeded 125. Sag and Jacobi said the data show the chief justice playing a more active role as referee during oral arguments.
In a recent post on SCOTUSblog, researcher Adam Feldman of Empirical Scotus looked at the rate of interruptions in the last term and reached different conclusions. Feldman wrote: “The oral argument interruption terrain appears to have changed this term when compared to previous terms. Although overall raw counts show that some female justices were interrupted at the high end of the spectrum, the figures for interruption frequency do not corroborate this point. Looking at interruptions only involving justices, female justices were not interrupted more frequently this term than male justices.”
Sag said Feldman's measure is slightly different: the number of words spoken. The more that a justice speaks, the more that justice will be interrupted.
“We look at the ratio of how much a justice is interrupted to how much that justice interrupts others,” Sag said. “What we see is Sotomayor and Kagan, in particular, get interrupted a lot more than they do interrupting. Kennedy and Roberts do a lot more interrupting than they are interrupted.”
They cautioned that it may be too early to test whether their study has had any effect on the justices' behavior during arguments because there is so much variation year to year.
“The 2016 term was a strange term,” said Sag, noting the number of low-profile cases and the vacancy that endured for nearly the entire term. “The 2017 term perhaps is going to be an anomalous term because it was Justice [Neil] Gorsuch's first full term and they took a backlog of more controversial cases. Just because we haven't seen an effect yet, doesn't mean we won't.”
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllManhattan Prosecutors Say They Will Oppose Efforts by Trump Legal Team to Dismiss Case
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Apple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Trending Stories
- 1Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 2When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 3Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
- 5Morgan & Morgan Looks to Grow Into Complex Litigation While Still Keeping its Billboards Up
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250