How to Lose Cases and Influence People

Dissenting opinions are common in the US Supreme Court even though they take time and effort, risk infuriating colleagues, and have no precedential value. In spite of these drawbacks, dissents can potentially contribute to future legal development. We theorize that dissenting justices who use more memorable language are more successful in achieving such long-term impact. To test this theory, we amass an original dataset of citations to dissenting opinions extracted directly from majority opinion text. We further leverage these texts to build an algorithm that quantifies the distinctiveness of dissenting language within a dynamic context. Our results indicate that dissents using more negative emotion and more distinctive words are cited more in future majority opinions. These results contribute to our understanding of how language can influence long-term policy development

Context (archaeology · Dissenting opinion · Leverage (statistics · Optimal distinctiveness theory · Political science · Public relations · Supreme court · Computer Science · History · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law in Society and Culture · Legal Education and Practice Innovations · Psychology · Social Psychology

• Cite and Sway? Attorneys, Briefs, and Persuasion at the U.S. Supreme Court

  Elizabeth A Lane, Jessica A Schoenherr•The Journal of Politics•2025

  Incluir item

• Intracourt Dialogue

  Open Access•Pamela C Corley, Artemus Ward•Journal of Law and Courts•2020

  Incluir item

• What’s in a Name

  Open Access•Ali S Masood, Benjamin J Kassow•Law & Social Inquiry•2022

  Incluir item

• Measuring Emotional Expression with the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count

  Open Access•Jeffrey H Kahn, Renée M Tobin et al.•The American Journal of Psychology•2007

  Incluir item

• Emotional Stimuli, Divided Attention, and Memory

  Rosalie P Kern, Terry M Libkuman et al.•Emotion•2005

  Incluir item

• Influence of Emotion on Memory for Temporal Information

  Arnaud D’argembeau, Martial Van Der Linden•Emotion•2005

  Incluir item

• The Incumbent in the Living Room

  Markus Prior•The Journal of Politics•2006

  Incluir item

• Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999

  Open Access•A D Martins, Andrew D Martin et al.•Political Analysis•2002

  Incluir item

• The Norm of Consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court

  Lee Epstein, Jeffrey A Segal et al.•American Journal of Political…•2001

  Incluir item

• Legal Constraint in the US Courts of Appeals

  Rachael K Hinkle•The Journal of Politics•2015

  Incluir item

• Dissent in American Courts

  A Peterson, Steven A Peterson•The Journal of Politics•1981

  Incluir item

• Should I Use Fixed or Random Effects

  Open Access•Tom S Clark, Drew A Linzer•Political Science Research and…•2015

  Incluir item

• Voters, Emotions, and Memory

  Open Access•Andrew J W Civettini, David P Redlawsk•Political Psychology•2009

  Incluir item

• Back to the Future

  Open Access•D Bruce Carter, David B Carter et al.•Political Analysis•2010

  Incluir item

• Framing Theory

  D Chong, James N Druckman•Annual Review of Political Science•2007

  Incluir item