(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
From our analysis of eight terms, we believe that laughter at Supreme Court oral arguments tends to be an indication not of lighthearted, good-natured jesting by a superior to an inferior, but of a rhetorical weapon being used by a superior against an inferior, by a justice as a form of advocacy against an advocate arguing a side the justice likely will oppose, or when an advocate is inexperienced or doing badly.
— Professors Tonja Jacobi of Northwestern University School of Law and Matthew Sag of Loyola University of Chicago Law School, in their forthcoming study, “Taking Laughter Seriously at the Supreme Court,” which analyzes every Supreme Court oral argument transcript from 1955 to 2017. Laughter, they say, is a “blood sport” at SCOTUS.
Keeping Law School Accessible When Federal Loans Fall Short
As federal borrowing caps tighten financing options for law students, one organization is stepping in to negotiate the terms they can't secure alone.
Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.