A topic model approach to studying agenda formation for the U.S. Supreme Court

Study of agenda formation in the U.S. Supreme Court is one of the most long-standing in empirical legal studies. This paper exploits a relatively new approach to quantitative text analysis - topic modeling - to provide a new lens on agenda formation, and specifically how the subject matter of Supreme Court decisions differs from the subject matter in the corpus of published decisions in the U.S. Appellate Courts. A 30-topic model is fit to the entire joint corpus (Supreme Court plus Appellate Court) and systematic differences are found between the subject matter emphases in three corpora: the Supreme Court, the Appellate Court, and Appellate Court cases selected for review. These findings validate topic modeling as a useful methodological approach for studying agenda formation specifically, and open the door to a larger research approach in empirical legal studies based on the application of topic models to the rich textual corpus of legal decisions.The most current version of this paper can be found at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2740126

[1]  A. Rosenthal,et al.  What the Supreme Court Did Not Do in the 1949 Term – An Appraisal of Certiorari , 1950 .

[2]  A. Downs.  An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy , 1957, Journal of Political Economy.

[3]  G. Schubert,et al.  The Study of Judicial Decision-Making as an Aspect of Political Behavior , 1958, American Political Science Review.

[4]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , 1963 .

[5]  S. Ulmer,et al.  The Decision to Grant or Deny Certiorari: Further Consideration of Cue Theory , 1972 .

[6]  Brennan,et al.  The National Court of Appeals: Another Dissent , 1973 .

[7]  D. Provine.  Case selection in the United States Supreme Court , 1980 .

[8]  S. Ulmer.  The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a Predictive Variable , 1984, American Political Science Review.

[9]  John R. Wright,et al.  Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court , 1988, American Political Science Review.

[10]  Pamela S. Karlan,et al.  Nonmajority Rules and the Supreme Court , 1988 .

[11]  J. H. Fujimura.  The Molecular Biological Bandwagon in Cancer Research: Where Social Worlds Meet , 1988 .

[12]  Gregory A. Caldeira,et al.  The Discuss List: Agenda Building in the Supreme Court , 1990 .

[13]  H. W. Perry,et al.  Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court , 1992 .

[14]  G. Casella,et al.  Explaining the Gibbs Sampler , 1992 .

[15]  Gregory A. Caldeira,et al.  Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity: Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court , 1993, American Political Science Review.

[16]  A. Chandler,et al.  Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 , 1994 .

[17]  Barbara Palmer,et al.  Issue Fluidity on the U.S. Supreme Court , 1995, American Political Science Review.

[18]  J. Segal,et al.  Supreme Court Justices as Strategic Decision Makers: Aggressive Grants and Defensive Denials on the Vinson Court , 1995, The Journal of Politics.

[19]  T. Johnson,et al.  The Claim of Issue Creation on the U.S. Supreme Court , 1996, American Political Science Review.

[20]  Barbara Palmer,et al.  Issues, Agendas, and Decision Making on the Supreme Court , 1996, American Political Science Review.

[21]  Paul J. Wahlbeck,et al.  Strategic Policy Considerations and Voting Fluidity on the Burger Court , 1996, American Political Science Review.

[22]  L. Epstein,et al.  The choices justices make , 1997 .

[23]  Gregory A. Caldeira,et al.  Sophisticated voting and gate-keeping in the supreme court , 1999 .

[24]  K. Knorr-Cetina,et al.  Epistemic cultures : how the sciences make knowledge , 1999 .

[25]  Barbara Palmer.  Issue Fluidity and Agenda Setting on the Warren Court , 1999 .

[26]  Donald R. Songer,et al.  Strategic Auditing in a Political Hierarchy: An Informational Model of the Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions , 2000, American Political Science Review.

[27]  S. Brenner.  Granting Certiorari by the United States Supreme Court: An Overview of the Social Science Studies , 2000 .

[28]  P. Donnelly,et al.  Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. , 2000, Genetics.

[29]  Margaret Meriwether Cordray,et al.  The Supreme Court's Plenary Docket , 2001 .

[30]  Christopher Zorn.  U.S. Government Litigation Strategies in the Federal Appellate Courts , 2002 .

[31]  Andrew D. Martin,et al.  Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999 , 2002, Political Analysis.

[32]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Latent Dirichlet Allocation , 2001, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[33]  Margaret Meriwether Cordray,et al.  The Philosophy of Certiorari: Jurisprudential Considerations in Supreme Court Case Selection , 2004 .

[34]  Sebastian Thrun,et al.  Text Classification from Labeled and Unlabeled Documents using EM , 2000, Machine Learning.

[35]  Hinrich Schütze,et al.  Introduction to information retrieval , 2008 .

[36]  Mark S. Hurwitz.  Institutional Arrangements and the Dynamics of Agenda Formation in the U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals , 2006 .

[37]  Yee Whye Teh,et al.  A Hierarchical Bayesian Language Model Based On Pitman-Yor Processes , 2006, ACL.

[38]  John D. Lafferty,et al.  Dynamic topic models , 2006, ICML.

[39]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Hierarchical Dirichlet Processes , 2006 .

[40]  Forrest Maltzman,et al.  Agenda Control, the Median Justice, and the Majority Opinion on the U.S. Supreme Court , 2007 .

[41]  C. Cameron,et al.  Bargaining and Opinion Assignment on the US Supreme Court , 2007 .

[42]  Charles Elkan,et al.  Accounting for burstiness in topic models , 2009, ICML '09.

[43]  David C. Thompson,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures: The Call for Response and the Call for the Views of the Solicitor General , 2009 .

[44]  Benjamin E. Lauderdale,et al.  Locating Supreme Court Opinions in Doctrine Space , 2009 .

[45]  Ryan C. Black,et al.  Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court: The Collision of Policy and Jurisprudence , 2009, The Journal of Politics.

[46]  Chong Wang,et al.  Reading Tea Leaves: How Humans Interpret Topic Models , 2009, NIPS.

[47]  Dragomir R. Radev,et al.  How to Analyze Political Attention with Minimal Assumptions and Costs , 2010 .

[48]  Ryan C. Black,et al.  The Role of Law Clerks in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Agenda-Setting Process , 2012 .

[49]  Scott A. Hendrickson,et al.  The Ideological Divide: Conflict and the Supreme Court’s Certiorari Decision , 2012 .

[50]  Ryan C. Black,et al.  The Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court: Executive Branch Influence and Judicial Decisions , 2012 .

[51]  Alexander J. Smola,et al.  Scalable inference in latent variable models , 2012, WSDM '12.

[52]  Andrew D. Martin,et al.  Who Controls the Content of Supreme Court Opinions , 2012 .

[53]  Andrew H. Sidman,et al.  Is Certiorari Contingent on Litigant Behavior? Petitioners' Role in Strategic Auditing , 2013 .

[54]  Brent D. Boyea,et al.  Judicial Ideology and the Selection of Disputes for U.S. Supreme Court Adjudication , 2013 .

[55]  Jonathan P. Kastellec,et al.  The Supreme Court and Percolation in the Lower Courts: An Optimal Stopping Model , 2013 .

[56]  Douglas Rice.  The Impact of Supreme Court Activity on the Judicial Agenda , 2014 .

[57]  T. Johnson,et al.  Issue Resuscitation at Oral Argument on the US Supreme Court , 2014 .

[58]  Swapnil Mishra,et al.  Experiments with non-parametric topic models , 2014, KDD.

[59]  B. Lauderdale,et al.  Who Controls Opinion Content? Testing Theories of Authorship using Case-Specic Preference Estimates for the US Supreme Court , 2014 .

[60]  Thomas Hofmann,et al.  Probabilistic Latent Semantic Indexing , 1999, SIGIR Forum.