Two justices, two distinct philosophies—when Barrett and Jackson take the bench, their questions don’t just seek answers; they help shape the very future of constitutional law.
Trump’s judges are writing fiery dissents, Biden’s are making history. Curious about which judges stand out—and why? The answers might change how you see the federal courts of appeals.
Contracts are now integrated into an end-to-end system, and efficiencies abound.
Litigation powerhouses that used to fly under the radar are now front and center.
Perhaps the most (or at least one of the most) important duties of the president is judicial appointments.
Sophisticated writing software with AI components can now tell you how to write like particular judges by engineering writing that mirrors stylistic features of the judges’ writings.
Overall, these justices reflect the ideological spectrum of the Supreme Court.
From training to technology, uncover the essential steps to futureproof your law firm in a competitive market.
This analysis underscores that influence within judicial discourse is more multifaceted than meets the eye.
Knowledge of how justices engage in oral arguments compared to their written opinions can inform legal practitioners on how to better present cases.
The justices clearly are emotional actors and so Supreme Court opinions are not even nearly devoid of emotional language. It is also clear that the justices’ relative use of emotional language varies quite a bit, both between cases and between justices.
Who is the top-ranking justice from this past term?
Meet LexisNexis Protégé™, the new AI assistant that leverages personalization choices controlled by the user or their organization to optimize the individual’s AI experience.
While almost always in agreement, Roberts and Kavanaugh clearly see things differently in varying degrees in a number of cases.
Astute amicus filers are aware of the cases where these briefs will likely play more and less important roles, and file these briefs accordingly.
The Supreme Court justices who write the most opinions do not always have the greatest output for the term.
The justices clearly assert their uniqueness with their concurrences and as this is on display, they show how the justices may be more different than meets the eye.
We recently used Optimized Legal Audio (OLA) to try to read the tea leaves on the audio footprint of the SEC v. Jarkesy case. Here are the results.