Legal writing expert Ross Guberman published an analysis Friday identifying five specific persuasive writing techniques used by U.S. Supreme Court justices during the 2025-26 term. The report examines how various justices structured their opinions to address complex statutory schemes, constitutional boundaries, and factual concessions in cases ranging from Fourth Amendment searches to campaign finance.
The analysis is based on two decades of Guberman’s research into Supreme Court opinions to identify models for legal persuasion. The 2025-26 term, characterized by Guberman as having both contentious issues and notable writing, provided examples from unanimous, sharply divided, and multi-coalition opinions that serve as templates for legal advocates.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was cited for using "character sketches" in Bowe v. United States to explain dense statutes by assigning specific roles to different legal provisions. In Chatrie v. United States, Justice Elena Kagan used a technique called "holding the line" to challenge government arguments regarding short-term digital monitoring. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett were noted for "shrinking the issue" in cases involving firearm possession and election laws, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh used a "not all or nothing" approach in a campaign finance ruling to list existing regulatory safeguards. Finally, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was highlighted for her method of conceding facts while disputing their legal meaning in a patent infringement case.
The scale of these rulings affects millions of citizens across all 50 states through the interpretation of federal statutes and constitutional amendments. For example, the ruling in Watson v. Republican National Committee specifically affirmed Mississippi’s ability to count absentee ballots received up to five days after an election, provided they are postmarked by election day. This sets a precedent for how state election laws interact with federal statutes, directly impacting voters and election officials by establishing the window in which a ballot remains valid. The financial implications are also significant in cases like Hikma Pharmaceuticals v. Amarin Pharma, where the Court's handling of patent infringement allegations affects the pharmaceutical market and the availability of generic versions of branded drugs.
For legal professionals and students, these techniques represent the current standards for persuasion in the nation's highest court. The transition from abstract legal theory to concrete "actors" and "roles" in judicial writing changes how laws are argued in lower courts and how new legislation is drafted by Congress. Advocates will likely apply these models in motions to dismiss and appellate briefs during the upcoming court term. The specific impacts on individual rights, such as Fourth Amendment privacy or Second Amendment possession, will be felt as these precedents are applied to new cases currently moving through the federal court system.