The SCOTUS Tournament: Winning Isn't Everything

Litigation at the U.S. Supreme Court is a tournament of champions. This Essay presents an empirical analysis of Supreme Court advocacy over time (1970-2023), examining how the elitification of the legal profession has transformed Supreme Court oral arguments. Drawing on a dataset of 7,077 cases and 4,599 private attorneys, we analyze the rise of repeat players and their litigation success. Our findings reveal a transformation.

In the 1970s, most Court advocates were rookies: first-time advocates from various backgrounds. Today, a small number of superstars dominate: attorneys with extensive experience, elite law school degrees, Supreme Court clerkships, and stints in the Office of the Solicitor General. Contrary to conventional wisdom that experience creates overwhelming advantages, our head-to-head analysis reveals nuanced patterns. These findings complicate prevailing "capture" narratives suggesting corporate interests systematically gained advantage through elite lawyer procurement.

While elitification is undeniable, competitive dynamics are complex. Experience provides meaningful but not determinative advantages. The Supreme Court bar increasingly resembles elite tennis championships where skilled players face comparable opponents, rather than mismatched professional-versus-amateur contests.