Oral Argument Analytics
Every argument this term, quantified from the official transcripts: who asked what, how much, of whom — and whether the pattern predicted the outcome. Loading…
Who's writing what: the opinion-assignment tracker for this term →
Every argument transcript since OT 2010 → · The advocates: records and questioning faced →
How question counts work from OT2026. Since OT2021 each lawyer's time ends with a round in which the Chief Justice calls on every Justice in turn. Counting that round made the "side asked more questions loses" rule no better than a coin flip (49.7% of OT2021–25 cases): the round carries no signal about votes, and every lawyer gets one, so the side with more lawyers draws more questions. From OT2026 we count Justice turns in the open period only, per lawyer: on OT2021–25 that picks the winner in 62.7% of cases and individual votes 64.4% of the time — still below "the petitioner always wins" (68.5%) at the case level, so we treat it as evidence, not a forecast. The OT2025 figures on this page use the rule as it was then. More on what's new for OT2026 · back-test data
The bench, by the numbers
Totals across the term's arguments. “Signal accuracy” asks: did this justice's own behavior at argument — their question pattern (ELP) or the sentiment of their questions — match their eventual vote?
| Justice | Args | Questions | per arg | Words spoken | Interruptions | ELP → vote | Sentiment → vote |
|---|
Case by case
Questions to each side, the ELP pick (side asked more questions loses), and what the Court did.
| Argued | Case | Q→Pet | Q→Resp | ELP pick | Outcome | ELP | Transcript |
|---|