Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-dzwm5 Total loading time: 0.459 Render date: 2023-01-31T17:05:53.786Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Lawyer, Interrupted: Gender Bias in Oral Arguments at the US Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Dana Patton*
Affiliation:
University of Alabama
Joseph L. Smith
Affiliation:
University of Alabama
*
Contact the corresponding author at dana.patton@ua.edu.

Abstract

We examine gender bias in political institutions through a novel lens: oral arguments at the US Supreme Court. We ask whether female lawyers are afforded less speaking time during oral arguments compared to male lawyers. We posit that justices, while highly educated and more aware than most of laws requiring equal treatment, may be influenced by gender schemas that result in unconscious biased treatment of male and female lawyers. Applying automated content analysis to the transcripts of 3,583 oral arguments, we find that female lawyers are interrupted earlier, allowed to speak for less time between interruptions, and subjected to more and longer speeches by the justices compared to their male counterparts. However, this pattern is reversed during oral arguments involving gender-related cases. Our most novel and significant theoretical finding is that gender negates the well-documented positive effect of being on the winning side of a case.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2017 by Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Authors’ names are listed alphabetically; each contributed equally to the project. We thank Kevin McGuire, Nichole Bauer, the editor of this journal, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

References

Banwart, Mary Christine, Dianne G. Bystrom, and Terry Robertson. 2003. “From the Primary to the General Election: A Comparative Analysis of Candidate Media Coverage in Mixed Gender 2000 Races for Governor and U.S. Senate.American Behavioral Scientist 46 (5): 658–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Nichole M. 2017. “The Effects of Counterstereotypic Gender Strategies on Candidate Evaluations.Political Psychology 38:279–95. doi:10.1111/pops.12351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, Geoffrey, Doron Cohen, and Laura McGuire. 2013. “An Exploration of Possible Unconscious Ethnic Biases in Higher Education: The Role of Implicit Attitudes on Selection for University Posts.Semiotica 197:171–201.Google Scholar
Bern, Sandra L. 1981. “Gender Schema Theory: A Cognitive Account of Sex Typing.Psychological Review 88 (4): 354–64.Google Scholar
Bern, Sandra L. 1993. The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C., Timothy R. Johnson, and Justin Wedeking. 2012. Oral Arguments and Coalition Formation on the U.S. Supreme Court: A Deliberate Dialogue. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C., Maron W. Sorenson, and Timothy R. Johnson. 2013. “Toward an Actor-Based Measure of Supreme Court Case Salience Information-Seeking and Engagement during Oral Arguments.Political Research Quarterly 66 (4): 804–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C., and James F. Spriggs. 2008. “An Empirical Analysis of the Length of US Supreme Court Opinions.Houston Law Review 45 (3): 621–83.Google Scholar
Blair, Irene V. 2002. “The Malleability of Automatic Stereotypes and Prejudice.Personality and Social Psychology Review 6 (3): 242–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, Irene V., Jennifer E. Ma, and Alison P. Lenton. 2001. “Imagining Stereotypes Away: The Moderation of Implicit Stereotypes through Mental Imagery.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8 (5): 828–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Christina L., Lee Epstein, and Andrew D. Martin. 2010. “Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging.American Journal of Political Science 54:389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Tom S., Jeffrey R. Lax, and Douglas Rice. 2015. “Measuring the Political Salience of Supreme Court Cases.Journal of Law and Courts 3 (1): 37–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M., Jr. 2008. Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Todd, and Laura Moyer. 2008. “Gender, Race, and Intersectionality on the Federal Appellate Bench.Political Research Quarterly 62 (2): 219–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C. 2008. “The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Influence of Parties’ Briefs.Political Research Quarterly 61 (3): 468–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C., Paul M. Collins Jr., and Bryan Calvin. 2011. “Lower Court Influence on US Supreme Court Opinion Content.Journal of Politics 73 (1): 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, Nilanjana, and Anthony G. Greenwald. 2001. “On the Malleability of Automatic Attitudes: Combating Automatic Prejudice with Images of Admired and Disliked Individuals.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81:800–814.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Epstein, Lee, William M. Landes, and Richard A. Posner. 2010. “Inferring the Winning Party in the Supreme Court from the Pattern of Questioning at Oral Argument.Journal of Legal Studies 39:433–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Michael C., Wayne V. McIntosh, Jimmy Lin, and Cynthia L. Cates. 2007. “Recounting the Courts? Applying Automated Content Analysis to Enhance Empirical Legal Research.Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4 (4): 1007–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawronski, Bertram, and Galen V. Bodenhousen. 2006. “Associative and Propositional Processes in Evaluation: An Integrative Review of Implicit and Explicit Attitude Change.Psychological Bulletin 132 (5): 692–731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, Sandra, and Brian S. Lowery. 2004. “Priming Unconscious Racial Stereotypes about Adolescent Offenders.Law and Human Behavior 28 (5): 483–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, Alexander R., Dana R. Carney, Daniel J. Pallin, Long H. Ngo, Kristal L. Raymond, Lisa I. Iezzoni, and Mahzarin R. Banaji. 2007. “Implicit Bias among Physicians and Its Prediction of Thrombolysis Decisions for Black and White Patients.Journal of General Internal Medicine 22:1231–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwald, Anthony G., and Linda Hamilton Krieger. 2006. “Implicit Bias: Scientific Foundations.California Law Review 94 (4): 945–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Peter W., and Susan D. Clayton. 1996. “The Effects of Lawyer Presentation Style, Lawyer Gender, and Juror Gender on Juror Decisions.Law and Human Behavior 20 (5): 533–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haire, Susan Brodie, Stefanie A. Lindquist, and Roger Hartley. 1999. “Lawyer Expertise, Litigant Success, and Judicial Decisionmaking in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.Law and Society Review 33 (3): 667–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Danny, and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2016. Women on the Run: Gender, Media, and Political Campaigns in a Polarized Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynes, Kathryn. 2012. “Body Beautiful? Gender, Identity and the Body in Professional Services Firms.Gender, Work and Organization 19 (5): 489–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R. 2001. “Information, Oral Arguments, and Supreme Court Decision Making.American Politics Research 29:331–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R. 2004. Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the U.S. Supreme Court. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., Ryan C. Black, and Justin Wedeking. 2009. “Pardon the Interruption: Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Justices’ Behavior during Oral Arguments.Loyola Law Review 55:331–51.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., Paul J. Wahlbeck, and James F. Spriggs. 2006. “The Influence of Oral Arguments on the US Supreme Court.American Political Science Review 100:99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, Jerry, Judge Mark Bennett, Devon Carbado, Pam Casey, Nilanjana Dasgupta, David Faigman, Rachel Godsil, Anthony G. Greenwald, Justin Levinson, and Jennifer Mnookin. 2012. “Implicit Bias in the Courtroom.UCLA Law Review 59 (5): 1124–86.Google Scholar
Karpinski, Andrew, and James L. Hilton. 2001. “Attitudes and the Implicit Association Test.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (5): 774–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karpowitz, Christopher F., and Tali Mendelberg. 2014. The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation and Institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kathlene, Lyn. 1994. “Power and Influence in State Legislative Policymaking: The Interaction of Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates.American Political Science Review 88 (3): 560–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, Amy K., and Denise Sekaquaptewa. 2007. “Implicit Stereotypes, Gender Identification, and Math-Related Outcomes: A Prospective Study of Female College Students.Psychological Science 18 (1): 13–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kollock, Peter, Philip Blumstein, and Pepper Schwartz. 1985. “Sex and Power in Interaction.American Sociological Review 50:34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 1990. Talking Power: The Politics of Language in Our Lives. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lemons, Mary A., and Monica Parzinger. 2007. “Gender Schemas: A Cognitive Explanation of Discrimination of Women in Technology.Journal of Business and Psychology 22 (1): 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowery, Brian S., Curtis D. Hardin, and Stacey Sinclair. 2001. “Social Influence Effects on Automatic Racial Prejudice.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81:842–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, Andrew D., and Kevin M. Quinn. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the US Supreme Court, 1953–1999.Political Analysis 10 (2):134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Carol Lynn. 1987. “A Ratio Measure of Sex Stereotyping.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (3): 489–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Carol Lynn, and Charles F. Halverson Jr. 1981. “A Schematic Processing Model of Sex Typing and Stereotyping in Children.Child Development 52 (4): 1119–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Carol Lynn, Carolyn H. Wood, and Jane K. Little. 1990. “The Development of Gender Stereotype Components.Child Development 61 (6): 1891–1904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattei, Laura R. Winksky. 1998. “Gender and Power in American Legislative Discourse.Journal of Politics 60 (2): 440–61.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 1993. “Lawyers and the US Supreme Court: The Washington Community and Legal Elites.American Journal of Political Science 37 (2): 365–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 1995. “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success.Journal of Politics 57:187–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali, Christopher F. Karpowitz, and J. Baxter Oliphant. 2014. “Gender Inequality in Deliberation: Unpacking the Black Box of Interaction.Perspectives on Politics 12 (1): 18–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Jason P., Brian A. Nosek, and Mahzarin R. Banaji. 2003. “Contextual Variations in Implicit Evaluation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132:455–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neisser, Ulric. 1976. Cognition and Reality: Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Niven, David, and Jeremy Zilber. 2001. “How Does She Have Time for Kids and Congress? Views on Gender and Media Coverage from House Offices.” In Women and Congress: Running, Winning and Ruling, ed. Karen O’Connor, 147–66. New York: Haworth.Google Scholar
Nosek, Brian A., Mahzarin R. Banaji, and Anthony G. Greenwald. 2002. “Harvesting Implicit Group Attitudes and Beliefs from a Demonstration Web Site.Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 6:101–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Ryan J., and Justin P. Wedeking. 2011. “Justices and Legal Clarity: Analyzing the Complexity of US Supreme Court Opinions.Law and Society Review 45 (4): 1027–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereise, Jennifer L. 2005. “Female Judges Matter: Gender and Collegial Decisionmaking in the Federal Appellate Courts.Yale Law Journal 114 (7): 1759–90.Google Scholar
Phillips, James Cleith, and Edward Carter. 2010. “Gender and US Supreme Court Oral Argument on the Roberts Court: An Empirical Examination.Rutgers Law Journal 41:613–55.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2012. “The Supreme Court and Celebrity Culture.Chicago Kent Law Review 88:299–305.Google Scholar
Reskin, Barbara F. 2005. “Unconsciousness Raising.Regional Review 14 (3): 32–37.Google Scholar
Rice, Douglas. 2017. “Issue Divisions and US Supreme Court Decision Making.Journal of Politics 79:210–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riger, Stephanie, Pennie Foster-Fishman, Julie Nelson-Kuna, and Barbara Curran. 1995. “Gender Bias in Courtroom Dynamics.Law and Human Behavior 19 (5): 465–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringsmuth, Eve. M., Amanda C. Bryan, and Timothy R. Johnson. 2013. “Voting Fluidity and Oral Argument on the U.S. Supreme Court.Political Research Quarterly 66 (2): 426–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, John G., Jr. 2005. “Oral Advocacy and the Re-emergence of a Supreme Court Bar.Journal of Supreme Court History 30:68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, Mary P. 1974. “The Progress of Women in Educational Institutions: The Saturn’s Rings Phenomenon.” In Graduate and Professional Education of Women, 1–9. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.Google Scholar
Rowe, Mary P. 1981. “The Minutiae of Discrimination: The Need for Support.” In Outsiders on the Inside, Women and Organizations, ed. Barbara Forisha and Barbara Goldman, 155–71. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Rowe, Mary P. 1990. “Barriers to Equality: The Power of Subtle Discrimination to Maintain Unequal Opportunity.Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 3 (2): 153–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudman, Laurie A., and Stephen E. Kilianski. 2000. “Implicit and Explicit Attitudes toward Female Authority.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26 (11): 1315–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudman, Laurie A., Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, Julie E. Phelan, and Sanne Nauts. 2012. “Status Incongruity and Backlash toward Female Leaders: Defending the Gender Hierarchy Motivates Prejudice against Female Leaders.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48:165–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadker, Myra, David Sadker, and Susan Klein. 1991. “The Issue of Gender in Elementary and Secondary Education.” In Review of Research in Education, vol. 17, ed. Carl A. Grant, 269–334. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Salokar, Rebecca Mae. 1994. The Solicitor General: The Politics of Law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Schafran, Lynn Hecht. 1987. “Documenting Gender Bias in the Courts: The Task Force Approach.Judicature 70:280–90.Google Scholar
Segal, Jennifer A. 2000. “Representative Decision Making on the Federal Bench: Clinton’s District Court Appointees.Political Research Quarterly 137:142–47.Google Scholar
Shullman, Sarah Levien. 2004. “Illusion of Devil’s Advocacy: How the Justices of the Supreme Court Foreshadow Their Decisions during Oral Argument.Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 6 (2): 271–93.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J., Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Jeffrey A. Segal, Theodore J. Ruger, and Sara C. Benesh. 2014. Supreme Court Database, Version 2014, Release 01. http://Supremecourtdatabase.org.Google Scholar
Stanley, Damian, Elizabeth Phelps, and Mahzarin Banaji. 2008. “The Neural Basis of Implicit Attitudes.Current Directions in Psychological Science 17 (2): 164–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strum, Philippa. 2000. “Change and Continuity on the Supreme Court: Conversations with Justice Harry A. Blackmun.University of Richmond Law Review 34:285–304.Google Scholar
Szmer, John, Erin B. Kaheny, Tammy A. Sarver, and Mason DeCamillis. 2013. “The Impact of Lawyer Gender on Decision Making in the United States Courts of Appeals.Journal of Women, Politics and Policy 34 (1): 72–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmer, John J., Tammy A. Sarver, and Erin B. Kaheny. 2010. “Have We Come a Long Way, Baby? The Influence of Lawyer Gender on Supreme Court Decision Making.Politics and Gender 6:1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wrightsman, Lawrence S. 2008. Oral Arguments before the Supreme Court: An Empirical Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoder, Janice D. 1991. “Rethinking Tokenism: Looking beyond Numbers.Gender and Society 5:178–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H., and Candace West. 1975. “Sex Roles, Interruptions, and Silences in Conversation. In Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, ed. Barrie Thome and Nancy Henly. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
17
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Lawyer, Interrupted: Gender Bias in Oral Arguments at the US Supreme Court
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Lawyer, Interrupted: Gender Bias in Oral Arguments at the US Supreme Court
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Lawyer, Interrupted: Gender Bias in Oral Arguments at the US Supreme Court
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *