Strategic Sensationalism: Why Justices Use Emotional Appeals in Supreme Court Opinions

Abstract

Why do justices use emotional appeals in their opinions? I explain this strategic decision using a theory based on conflict and audience. In non-salient cases, justices primarily speak to legal audiences. As cases become more salient, justices also cater to increasingly relevant non-legal audiences. This is especially true for dissenters, who seek to expand conflict and mobilize opposition through the use of emotional appeals when they find themselves in the losing coalition. My results confirm these expectations. They suggest that justices are engaged in a policy battle that does not end upon publication of Supreme Court opinions. Each coalition continues to fight for their position through the content of opinions they write, by playing to the strengths and biases of relevant audiences.