Humor in Supreme Court oral arguments

Abstract

Humor in political communication can risk trivializing important issues or otherwise backfire. Still, comedy's potential rhetorical power ensures its frequent use as a communication and persuasion strategy. This is true even in the Supreme Court of the United States, where oral-argument humor offers a window on thinking and communication strategies as justices deliberate and weigh contending arguments. Judicial humor at the Court may be likelier when participants are cognitively fresh, or when the case at issue focuses less on a specific person's life or liberty. Reviewing outbursts of laughter in the Court's oral arguments between the seating of Justice Kagan and the death of Justice Scalia confirms that cases argued later in the day and relating to individuals' civil rights see less humor. Within cases, humor arises less frequently during the argument that prevails in the Court's eventual judgment.