Attorney Argumentation and Supreme Court Opinions

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between argumentation advanced in the briefs and oral argument of four Supreme Court cases and the reasoning proffered by the Court in the opinion justifying its decision in those cases. At times, the attorney argumentation was utterly irrelevant to the reasoning advanced in the Court's opinions, while in other cases the Court adopted the claims and rationale offered by the attorneys. A perspective on argumentation and decision making derived from the interpretive view of argument and information integration theory explains these results.