Even Female Supreme Court Justices Get Interrupted a Lot by Men

Someone has finally counted, and it doesn’t look good for Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.

Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader GinsburgPablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Research going back to the 1970s shows definitively what women have long understood intuitively: Men have a hard time letting women talk without interrupting them—frequently. Apparently, not even holding one of the most powerful posts in America spares women from this irritating phenomenon.

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court can be brutal episodes of verbal warfare. Lawyers arguing their cases often can’t finish a sentence without a justice challenging their premises or changing the subject, and the justices even argue among themselves from the bench. A new analysis by Adam Feldman, author of the legal blog Empirical SCOTUS, attempted to quantify this phenomenon by examining this term’s oral arguments to determine which justices get interrupted the most by their colleagues, and which of those justices were also doing the most interrupting. The results were sadly predictable.

Men on the court spent a lot of time interrupting the two youngest female justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor was interrupted 57 times during arguments, while Kagan got cut off 50 times. The next most-interrupted person on the list was Justice Stephen Breyer, who got interrupted 36 times—more than 35 percent less than Sotomayor, despite his habit of long, and sometimes impenetrable, hypothetical streams of consciousness from the bench.

Adam Feldman/Empirical SCOTUS

Just who is doing all that butting in? Well, it’s not the other female justices. The most aggressive conversationalist by far was Justice Anthony Kennedy, the inveterate swing voter, who cut off his colleagues 57 times. He tends to ask a lot of questions of lawyers on both sides of a case. The person he most interrupted was Sotomayor, with 13 interventions. He also held the record for most frequently cutting off the venerable 83-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (13 times), whose halting and quiet speech her colleagues seem mostly reluctant to disturb, despite her gender. Justice Antonin Scalia might have been expected to score higher on the interruption scale, but sadly didn’t live long enough to finish out the term’s arguments.

One person Sotomayor and Kagan didn’t have to fear an intrusion from was Justice Clarence Thomas, who never interrupted or got interrupted; he spoke but once, an episode so rare and shocking that no one was going to step on his toes. 

Why is it that even the nation’s most powerful female judges still can’t get a word in edgewise without their male colleagues cutting them off? Feldman has a theory. In an email, he suggests that because Kagan is the court’s most junior member, she “tends to be deferential” to her more senior colleagues. Sotomayor, meanwhile, has a tendency to start thoughts without finishing them. (That’s a problem Ginsburg doesn’t have; she also tends to be the first justice out the gate to ask a question during oral arguments, setting up the later confrontations.)

“The male Justices (Thomas excluded) also appear more aggressive in their approaches than either Kagan or Ginsburg,” Feldman says. “Sotomayor will assert herself but she doesn’t always follow through.” Feldman posits that because of the “history of the Court as a male-dominated institution that only recently (in its history) had a female confirmed,” it’s not immune to the same gender dynamics feminist scholars have been documenting in other, less lofty settings over the past 40 years.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate