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

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2017, Pages

  Martin Katz, Daniel ^a,b   Bommarito, Michael J ^a,b   Blackman, Josh ^c  

^a CHICAGO KENT COLLEGE OF LAW   (United States)

^b STANFORD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

^c South Texas College of Law   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIOR; CLASSIFIER; COURT; HUMAN; JUSTICE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MODEL; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; PREDICTION; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; RANDOM FOREST; UNITED STATES; FORECASTING; JURISPRUDENCE; MACHINE LEARNING; SOCIAL JUSTICE; TRENDS;

FORECASTING; HUMANS; MACHINE LEARNING; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85017652700     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174698     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Martin AD, Quinn KM, Ruger TW, Kim PT. Competing approaches to predicting supreme court decision making. Perspectives on Politics, 2004; 2(4):761-767. https://doi. org/10. 1017/S1537592704040502
2. Guimerà R., Sales-Pardo M. Justice blocks and predictability of us supreme court votes. PloS One, 2011; 6(11):e27188. https://doi. org/10. 1371/journal. pone. 0027188 PMID: 22096533
3. Ruger TW, Kim PT, Martin AD, Quinn KM. The supreme court forecasting project: Legal and political science approaches to predicting supreme court decisionmaking. Columbia Law Review, 2004; 104 (4):1150-1209. https://doi. org/10. 2307/4099370
4. Breiman L. Random forests. Machine Learning, 2001; 45(1):5-32. https://doi. org/10. 1023/ A:1010933404324
5. Katz DM. Quantitative legal predictiondordhow i learned to stop worrying and start preparing for the data driven future of the legal services industry. Emory Law Journal, 2013; 62(4): 909-966.
6. Breiman L, Friedman J, Stone CJ, Olshen RA. (1984) Classification and regression trees. New York: CRC press. 358 p.
7. Saad D. (1999) On-line learning in neural networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 398 p.
8. Shalev-Shwartz S. Online learning and online convex optimization. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 2011; 4(2):107-194. https://doi. org/10. 1561/2200000018
9. Casillas CJ, Enns PK, Wohlfarth PC. How public opinion constrains the US Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 2011; 55(1):74-88. https://doi. org/10. 1111/j. 1540-5907. 2010. 00485. x
10. Segal JA. Separation-of-powers games in the positive theory of congress and courts. American Political Science Review, 1997; 91(1):28-44. https://doi. org/10. 2307/2952257
11. Epstein L, Martin AD, Quinn KM, Segal JA. Ideological drift among supreme court justices: Who, when, and how important. Northwestern University Law Review, 2007; 101(4):1483-1542.
12. Martin AD, Quinn KM. Assessing preference change on the us supreme court. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2007; 23(2):365-385. https://doi. org/10. 1093/jleo/ewm028
13. Calderia GA, Zorn C. Of time and consensual norms in the Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 1998; 42(3):874-902. https://doi. org/10. 2307/2991733
14. Ho DE, Quinn KM. Did a Switch in Time Save Nine Journal of Legal Analysis, 2010; 2(1):69-113. https://doi. org/10. 1093/jla/2. 1. 69
15. Leicht EA, Clarkson G, Shedden K, Newman MEJ. Large-scale structure of time evolving citation networks. The European Physical Journal B, 2007; 59(1):75-83. https://doi. org/10. 1140/epjb/e2007-00271-7
16. Spaeth HJ, Epstein L, Martin AD, Segal JA, Ruger TJ, Benesh SC. 2016 Supreme Court Database, Version 2016 Legacy Release v01. (SCDB-Legacy-01) http://Supremecourtdatabase. org
17. Segal JA, Spaeth HJ (2002) The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 480 p.
18. Bailey MA, Maltzman F. Does legal doctrine matter unpacking law and policy preferences on the us supreme court. American Political Science Review, 2008; 102(3):369-384. https://doi. org/10. 1017/ S0003055408080283
19. Benjamin SM, Desmarais BA. Standing the test of time: The breadth of majority coalitions and the fate of us supreme court precedents. Journal of Legal Analysis, 2012; 4(2):445-469. https://doi. org/10. 1093/jla/las016
20. Martin AD, Quinn KM. Dynamic ideal point estimation via markov chain monte carlo for the US Supreme Court, 1953-1999. Political Analysis, 2002; 10(2):134-153. https://doi. org/10. 1093/pan/10. 2. 134
21. Segal JA, Epstein L, Cameron CM, Spaeth HJ. Ideological values and the votes of US Supreme Court justices revisited, The Journal of Politics, 1995; 57(3):812-823. https://doi. org/10. 2307/2960194
22. Lee ED, Broedersz CP, Bialek W. Statistical Mechanics of the US Supreme Court, Journal of Statistical Physics, 2015; 160(2): 275-301. https://doi. org/10. 1007/s10955-015-1253-6
23. Segal JA, Spaeth HJ. The influence of stare decisis on the votes of united states supreme court justices. American Journal of Political Science, 1996; 40(4):971-1003. https://doi. org/10. 2307/2111738
24. Shapiro C. Coding complexity: Bringing law to the empirical analysis of the supreme court. Hastings Law Journal, 2008; 160(2):60:477.
25. Katz DM, Bommarito MJ, Blackman J. Predicting the Behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States: A General Approach. 2014; arXiv:1407. 6333
26. Bommarito MJ. Supreme Court Prediction Model v2. GitHub Repository, https://github. com/mjbommar/ scotus-predict-v2
27. Hofer RE. Supreme Court Reversal Rates: Evaluating the Federal Courts of Appeals. American Bar AssociationdLandslide, 2010; 2(3):8-11.
28. Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas J, Passos A, Cournapeau D, Brucher M, Perrot M, Duchesnay E. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2011; 12:2825-2830.
29. Caruana R, Niculescu-Mizil A. An empirical comparison of supervised learning algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning. ACM; 2006 p. 161-168.
30. Chollet F. Keras: Deep Learning library for TensorFlow and Theano, Github, 2015; https://github. com/ fchollet/keras
31. Louppe G. Understanding Random Forests: From Theory to Practice Dissertation, University of Liege, Belgium, 2014.
32. Katz DM, Bommarito MJ, Soellinger T, Chen JM. Law on the Market Evaluating the Securities Market Impact of Supreme Court Decisions 2015; arXiv:1508. 05751
33. Aletras N, Tsarapatsanis D, Preoiuc-Pietro D, Lampos V. Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: A natural language processing perspective. PeerJ Computer Science, 2016; 2: e93. https://doi. org/10. 7717/peerj-cs. 93
34. Harbert T. The Law Machine. IEEE Spectrum, 2013; 50(11):31-54. https://doi. org/10. 1109/MSPEC. 2013. 6655836
35. Ashley KD, BruÈninghaus S. Automatically Classifying Case Texts and Predicting Outcomes. Artificial Intelligence and Law. 2009; 17(2):125-65. https://doi. org/10. 1007/s10506-009-9077-9
36. McShane BB, Watson OP, Baker T, Griffith SJ. Predicting securities fraud settlements and amounts: A hierarchical Bayesian model of federal securities class action lawsuits. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. 2012; 9(3):482-510. https://doi. org/10. 1111/j. 1740-1461. 2012. 01260. x
37. Cormack GV, Grossman MR. Evaluation of machine-learning protocols for technology-assisted review in electronic discovery. In: Proceedings of the 37th International ACM SIGIR conference on Research & development in information retrieval ACM; 2014 p. 153-162.
38. Surden H. Machine learning and law. Washington Law Review. 2014; 89(1):87-115.
39. Sanga S. Choice of law: An empirical analysis. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. 2014; 11(4): 894-928. https://doi. org/10. 1111/jels. 12059
40. Talley E, O'Kane D. The measure of a MAC: A machine-learning protocol for analyzing force majeure clauses in M&A agreements. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics. 2012; 168(1): 181-201. https://doi. org/10. 1628/093245612799440177
41. Blackman J, Aft A, Carpenter C. Fantasyscotus: Crowdsourcing a prediction market for the supreme court. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 2012; 10(3): 125-168.
42. Katz DM, Bommarito MJ. The Three Forms of (Legal) PredictiondExperts, Crowds and Algorithms. Lecture presented at the Vanderbilt Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2016; Vanderbilt Law School.