Opening an Oral Argument before the Supreme Court: The Decline of Narrative's Role

The Review of Litigation, The Brief, Vol. 36, Summer 2016

Villanova Law/Public Policy Research Paper No. 2015-1007

18 Pages Posted: 13 Jun 2015 Last revised: 26 Jul 2016

See all articles by Louis J. Sirico

Louis J. Sirico

Villanova University School of Law

Date Written: 2016

Abstract

In contrast to an earlier era, today's oral advocate can expect Supreme Court justices to start asking questions earlier and often. Consequently, the advocate should expect to launch the argument with only a few sentences before the questions begin. These critical sentences offer the brief opportunity to introduce the theme of the subsequent argument. Advocates in other "hot bench" courts face the same challenge.

Our study of opening statements in Supreme Court oral arguments finds that the statements have one of three themes: a conventional legal argument, a policy argument, or a narrative argument. The conventional legal argument is the most common, followed by the policy argument, followed by the narrative argument.

The dearth of narrative arguments - even as supplementary arguments - can have adverse consequences for the advocate seeking to be persuasive and the Court seeking to decide the case properly.

Keywords: Supreme Court, oral argument, rhetoric, advocacy, narrative

Suggested Citation

Sirico, Louis J., Opening an Oral Argument before the Supreme Court: The Decline of Narrative's Role (2016). The Review of Litigation, The Brief, Vol. 36, Summer 2016, Villanova Law/Public Policy Research Paper No. 2015-1007, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2617472

Louis J. Sirico (Contact Author)

Villanova University School of Law ( email )

299 N. Spring Mill Road
Villanova, PA 19085
United States
610-519 7071 (Phone)
610-519 6282 (Fax)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
137
Abstract Views
967
Rank
379,079
PlumX Metrics