Legal scholars and analysts are examining a shift in judicial writing styles at the U.S. Supreme Court, highlighting Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s use of active verbs in the recent majority opinion for Watson v. Republican National Committee. The analysis contrasts Barrett’s prose with the style found in Justice William Brennan's opinion for the 1962 case Baker v. Carr. Observers note that this change in drafting moves away from "zombie nouns"—verbs turned into nouns through suffixes—toward sentences that identify specific actors and actions.
The stylistic review follows other recent analyses of writing by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch. These assessments indicate a trend among some current justices toward "classic style," a term used by author Steven Pinker to describe writing that treats the text as a conversation directing the reader toward real-world objects. In Watson v. Republican National Committee, a case concerning election deadlines and the Elections Clause, Barrett employed active phrasing to describe the powers of Congress and state legislatures.
Technical analysis of Watson v. Republican National Committee shows Barrett used active verbs such as "override," "direct," "determine," and "intervene" to describe congressional authority. She also utilized what professor Kendall Gray calls "virtual characters," giving active verbs to inanimate subjects like the Constitution, which she wrote "lodges" power in legislatures. In contrast, Justice William Brennan’s opinion in Baker v. Carr relied heavily on nominalizations; the word "reapportionment" (and its plural) appeared 229 times, whereas active forms of the word appeared only 47 times.
This shift in judicial drafting affects how the public and legal professionals interpret the scope of government power. By using active subjects, the court’s rulings name which entities—such as state legislatures or Congress—are responsible for specific actions. This clarity helps identify who holds authority under the Constitution’s Elections Clause.
The scale of this change is visible in the linguistic breakdown of these opinions. While Brennan’s 1962 opinion used hundreds of "zombie nouns" to describe the dilution of votes, modern opinions like Watson utilize direct verbs to clarify statutory requirements for mail-in ballots. For the reader, this means judicial opinions may become easier to navigate as the text focuses on what institutions did rather than abstract concepts.
Analysts expect a transition period as modernized procedural frameworks are adopted. The Supreme Court has already issued the Watson opinion, and the focus now moves to how lower courts and administrative bodies apply these mandates to upcoming election cycles. Further developments regarding institutional adoption of these frameworks are expected as new filings emerge.