A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States

Building on developments in machine learning and prior work in the science of judicial prediction, we construct a model designed to predict the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States in a generalized, out-of-sample context. To do so, we develop a time-evolving random forest classifier that leverages unique feature engineering to predict more than 240,000 justice votes and 28,000 cases outcomes over nearly two centuries (1816-2015). Using only data available prior to decision, our model outperforms null (baseline) models at both the justice and case level under both parametric and non-parametric tests. Over nearly two centuries, we achieve 70.2% accuracy at the case outcome level and 71.9% at the justice vote level. More recently, over the past century, we outperform an in-sample optimized null model by nearly 5%. Our performance is consistent with, and improves on the general level of prediction demonstrated by prior work; however, our model is distinctive because it can be applied out-of-sample to the entire past and future of the Court, not a single term. Our results represent an important advance for the science of quantitative legal prediction and portend a range of other potential applications.

[1]  Jeffrey A. Segal,et al.  The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited , 1993 .

[2]  Lee Epstein,et al.  Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Revisited , 1989, The Journal of Politics.

[3]  Jeffrey A. Segal,et al.  The Influence of Stare Decisis on the Votes of United States Supreme Court Justices , 1996 .

[4]  J. Segal Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts , 1997, American Political Science Review.

[5]  Gregory A. Caldeira,et al.  Of time and consensual norms in the Supreme Court , 1998 .

[6]  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.

[7]  Andrew D. Martin,et al.  The Supreme Court Forecasting Project: Legal and Political Science Approaches to Predicting Supreme Court Decisionmaking , 2004 .

[8]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[9]  Andrew D. Martin,et al.  Competing Approaches to Predicting Supreme Court Decision Making , 2004, Perspectives on Politics.

[10]  Rich Caruana,et al.  An empirical comparison of supervised learning algorithms , 2006, ICML.

[11]  Andrew D. Martin,et al.  Ideological Drift Among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important? , 2007 .

[12]  E. A. Leicht,et al.  Large-scale structure of time evolving citation networks , 2007, 0706.0015.

[13]  Andrew D. Martin,et al.  Assessing Preference Change on the US Supreme Court , 2007 .

[14]  Michael A. Bailey,et al.  Does Legal Doctrine Matter? Unpacking Law and Policy Preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court , 2008, American Political Science Review.

[15]  C. Shapiro Coding Complexity: Bringing Law to the Empirical Analysis of the Supreme Court , 2008 .

[16]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes , 2009, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[17]  Daniel E. Ho,et al.  Did a Switch in Time Save Nine , 2010 .

[18]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[19]  Patrick C. Wohlfarth,et al.  How Public Opinion Constrains the U.S. Supreme Court , 2011 .

[20]  Wei-Yin Loh,et al.  Classification and regression trees , 2011, WIREs Data Mining Knowl. Discov..

[21]  R. Guimerà,et al.  Justice Blocks and Predictability of U.S. Supreme Court Votes , 2011, PloS one.

[22]  Josh Blackman,et al.  FantasySCOTUS: Crowdsourcing a Prediction Market for the Supreme Court , 2011 .

[23]  Sean J. Griffith,et al.  Predicting Securities Fraud Settlements and Amounts: A Hierarchical Bayesian Model of Federal Securities Class Action Lawsuits , 2012 .

[24]  B. Desmarais,et al.  Standing the Test of Time: The Breadth of Majority Coalitions and the Fate of U.S. Supreme Court Precedents , 2012 .

[25]  D. Katz Quantitative Legal Prediction – or – How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Start Preparing for the Data Driven Future of the Legal Services Industry , 2012 .

[26]  Shai Shalev-Shwartz,et al.  Online Learning and Online Convex Optimization , 2012, Found. Trends Mach. Learn..

[27]  Eric L. Talley,et al.  The Measure of a MAC: A Machine-Learning Protocol for Analyzing Force Majeure Clauses in M&A Agreements , 2012 .

[28]  Tam Harbert The Law Machine , 2013, IEEE Spectrum.

[29]  Harry Surden,et al.  Machine Learning and Law , 2014 .

[30]  Sarath Sanga Choice of Law: An Empirical Analysis , 2014 .

[31]  Josh Blackman,et al.  Predicting the Behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States: A General Approach , 2014, ArXiv.

[32]  Maura R. Grossman,et al.  Evaluation of machine-learning protocols for technology-assisted review in electronic discovery , 2014, SIGIR.

[33]  Gilles Louppe,et al.  Understanding Random Forests: From Theory to Practice , 2014, 1407.7502.

[34]  William Bialek,et al.  Statistical Mechanics of the US Supreme Court , 2013, Journal of Statistical Physics.

[35]  D. Katz,et al.  Law on the Market? Evaluating the Securities Market Impact of Supreme Court Decisions∗ , 2015 .

[36]  Heike Freud,et al.  On Line Learning In Neural Networks , 2016 .

[37]  Nikolaos Aletras,et al.  Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective , 2016, PeerJ Comput. Sci..

[38]  D. Katz,et al.  Law on the Market? Abnormal Stock Returns and Supreme Court Decision-Making , 2015, 1508.05751.