Law Clerks and Dissensus: The Rise of Alternate Opinion Writing on the United States Supreme Court 1946-2001

Abstract

Looking at justice-level data from Supreme Court cases between 1946 and 2001, I analyze the effect of an increase in law clerks on various judicial actions. I find that given more clerks, justices are no more likely to vote with or against the majority coalition, however, they are more likely to vote in accordance with their ideological biases. Additionally, I find that given more clerks, justices show a higher propensity to author alternate opinions, however, they do not exhibit an increased willingness to sign onto existing alternate opinions. Lastly, I show that cases with higher numbers of alternate opinions are overturned by future Courts at a higher rate, but this does not imply that given more clerks, cases will be overturned more frequently.