Justices on Autopilot: Thinking-Fast Evidence from State Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Do oral arguments influence state supreme courts, and if so, how? Focusing on a “thinking-fast” framework, this study analyzes 2014–2021 New York Court of Appeals oral arguments to test whether non-traditional factors such as expressed emotion can shape decisions. Empirical analysis drawn from textual data shows that oral arguments can explain decision-making, and that justices’ emotion during arguments likely plays a role. The findings challenge normatively rational models of judicial behavior by underscoring affective, real-time influences and highlight oral arguments as a consequential stage in subnational adjudication. This is the first evidence of their meaningful role in state supreme courts.