A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States

被引:223
作者
Katz, Daniel Martin [1 ,2 ]
Bommarito, Michael J., II [1 ,2 ]
Blackman, Josh [3 ]
机构
[1] Illinois Tech, Chicago Kent Coll Law, Chicago, IL 60661 USA
[2] CodeX Stanford Ctr Legal Informat, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[3] South Texas Coll Law Houston, Houston, TX USA
关键词
JUSTICES; VOTES; LEGAL; TIME; LAW;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0174698
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Building on developments in machine learning and prior work in the science of judicial prediction, we construct a model designed to predict the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States in a generalized, out-of-sample context. To do so, we develop a time-evolving random forest classifier that leverages unique feature engineering to predict more than 240,000 justice votes and 28,000 cases outcomes over nearly two centuries (1816-2015). Using only data available prior to decision, our model outperforms null (baseline) models at both the justice and case level under both parametric and non-parametric tests. Over nearly two centuries, we achieve 70.2% accuracy at the case outcome level and 71.9% at the justice vote level. More recently, over the past century, we outperform an in-sample optimized null model by nearly 5%. Our performance is consistent with, and improves on the general level of prediction demonstrated by prior work; however, our model is distinctive because it can be applied out-of-sample to the entire past and future of the Court, not a single term. Our results represent an important advance for the science of quantitative legal prediction and portend a range of other potential applications.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 42 条
[1]   Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective [J].
Aletras, Nikolaos ;
Tsarapatsanis, Dimitrios ;
Preotiuc-Pietro, Daniel ;
Lampos, Vasileios .
PEERJ COMPUTER SCIENCE, 2016, 2016 (10)
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2014, Understanding Random Forests: From Theory to Practice
[3]   Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes [J].
Ashley, Kevin D. ;
Bruninghaus, Stefanie .
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LAW, 2009, 17 (02) :125-165
[4]   Does legal doctrine matter? Unpacking law and policy preferences on the US Supreme Court [J].
Bailey, Michael A. ;
Maltzman, Forrest .
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 2008, 102 (03) :369-384
[5]  
Benjamin S.M., 2012, J LEGAL ANAL, V4, P445, DOI DOI 10.1093/JLA/LAS016
[6]  
Blackman Josh., 2012, NorthWestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, V10, P125
[7]  
Bommarito MJ., SUPREME COURT PREDIC
[8]   Random forests [J].
Breiman, L .
MACHINE LEARNING, 2001, 45 (01) :5-32
[9]  
Breiman L., 1984, CLASSIFICATION AND R
[10]   Of time and consensual norms in the Supreme Court [J].
Caldeira, GA ;
Zorn, CJW .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 1998, 42 (03) :874-902