Abstract Using a unique and vast dataset and new measures derived from natural language processing, we investigate the flow of information to the Supreme Court via briefs. Our study provides an opportunity to consider the often-nuanced role of information in policymaking. Building on prior work, we contribute in a number of important ways to our understanding of the influence of information on policy generally and briefs on the Court’s decisions specifically. We consider how the repetition of information can signal policy coalescence across interested groups and individuals, as well as proxy quality and exert a psychological effect. We employ nuanced computational text analytic tools that are new to this line of inquiry to assess the extent to which information in a brief is shared among all briefs and lower court opinions in the case. Using these measures, we investigate the relationship between novel and shared information and the content of Supreme Court opinions. We do so over the entire substantive content of a new dataset of more than 12,000 litigant and amicus briefs filed in U.S. Supreme Court cases from 1988 to 2005. Our results provide new evidence that briefs presenting shared information are more likely to have that information adopted in the Court’s majority opinion, raising interesting implications regarding majoritarianism.

中文翻译：

---

摘要中的独特信息对最高法院意见内容的影响

摘要使用独特而庞大的数据集和源自自然语言处理的新措施，我们调查了通过简报流向最高法院的信息流。我们的研究提供了一个机会来考虑信息在政策制定中的微妙作用。在先前工作的基础上，我们以多种重要方式帮助我们理解信息对一般政策的影响，并具体介绍法院的决定。我们考虑信息的重复如何在感兴趣的群体和个人之间发出政策合并信号，以及代理质量和施加心理影响。我们采用细微的计算文本分析工具，这些工具对这一调查线来说是新的，以评估案件中所有案情摘要和下级法院意见之间共享案情摘要中的信息的程度。使用这些措施，我们调查新颖和共享信息与最高法院意见内容之间的关系。我们对 1988 年至 2005 年在美国最高法院案件中提交的超过 12,000 份诉讼当事人和法庭之友简报的新数据集的整个实质性内容进行了分析。我们的结果提供了新的证据，表明提供共享信息的简报更有可能在法院的多数意见，提出了有关多数主义的有趣含义。