Timothy R. Johnson Receives Lasting Contribution Award

Congratulations to Professor Tim Johnson on receiving the Lasting Contribution Award for his article "The Influence of Oral Arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court," coauthored with Paul J. Wahlbeck and James F. Spriggs. The American Political Science Association (APSA) Lasting Contribution Award is given annually for work that stands the test of time, is 10 or more years old, and has made a lasting impression on the field of law and courts.

To celebrate this award, Tim reflects on the article and its impact in the below Q&A.

What were the article's key questions and findings?

Prior to publishing this article, most work on Supreme Court oral arguments fell into one of two categories: advice advocates gave other lawyers who may argue at the Court and work focused on how justices' behavior during these proceedings affects their decisions. Scholars and Court watchers were not sure whether an attorney could actually persuade the justices to change their position on a case based on an hour discussion. Thus, we asked the following questions: 1. What factors influence the quality of arguments presented to the Court? and 2. Does the quality of a lawyer's oral argument affect the justices' final votes on the merits? We answered these questions by utilizing a unique data source: evaluations Harry A. Blackmun made of the quality of oral arguments presented to the justices. We found that Justice Blackmun's assessment was strongly predictive of who would win a case, the individual votes of each of his colleagues, and that the attorney who offered the better arguments in his view could change justices' views of the case. The implications of these findings go well beyond the Supreme Court—they speak to small group decision making, psychology, rhetorical analysis, and speech communication analysis.

What was working on this research like?

This project was the most fun I have had on a research project my entire career. I, along with Ryan Black (former student and now professor at Michigan State), was one of the first scholars to access Harry Blackmun's archival papers when they opened at the Library of Congress in spring 2004. That and subsequent archival trips led to many amazing discoveries, but our platinum find was within the notes Blackmun had taken to help him remember the arguments attorneys made, questions his colleagues asked, and other notes about the proceedings. Within the notes, we found that Blackmun had actually graded the arguments attorneys made before the Court. And these truly were grades; he used three scales during his tenure: 90-80-70-60; A-F; 10-9-8-7-6.

This was surely a career-making find and my coauthors quickly agreed. We knew we had a measure of argument quality that political scientists, psychologists, sociologists, and small group scholars had never before seen.

We wrote the initial draft by summer's end in 2004 and after we thought we had the statistical models correct and the writing polished we sent it to the discipline's premier journal, The American Political Science Review, for review. Double blind review is never quick and this was no exception. And, as it turned out, our process was longer than normal because the editor asked us to revise the manuscript. After just over a year the paper was accepted for publication.

How has this work stuck with you?

This work has stuck with me for a variety of reasons. First, it is the most important mark I have made on the field; it has, at this point in time, been cited more than 425 times. Second, it taught me that, as an archival scholar, I should always keep my eyes open for the unexpected because you never know what you might find. Perhaps most importantly, it taught me the benefits and joys of collaborative work and how mentors can impact your career. I am forever grateful for Paul J. Wahlbeck and James F. Spriggs for their partnership and mentorship for the past 30 years!

How has this article impacted the field?

I had been working on the Court's oral arguments for more than a decade before this article came out and, still, it was overlooked by the subfield. This piece changed the landscape of the field to the extent that scholars who analyze the Court's decision-making process must account for what transpires during its oral argument sessions that take place before the justices decide. While we cannot claim credit for the plethora of articles and books that have been written on these proceedings since the paper came out, the subfield has certainly taken a harder look at many aspects of the Court's argument sessions since 2006.

How does receiving this award feel?

This is one of those awards that validates work. I have been happy to earn best paper awards in the past, but an award that says your work has made a lasting contribution after almost two decades is very satisfying. I am very proud of myself and my coauthors. We produced something really good.

Composed by Sophia Paschke, communications associate.