Between silence and dissent: judicial voice at the Turkish Constitutional Court during executive consolidation

How does a constitutional court distribute scholarly authority between its collective and individual voices as executive power consolidates? Using manually adjudicated citations from the Turkish Constitutional Court’s searchable archive, this article compares majority opinions with dissents and concurrences in constitutional review and individual application cases. Citations to legal scholarship concentrate overwhelmingly in separate opinions, an asymmetry dating to the Court’s founding. In constitutional review, citation intensity increased even after accounting for caseload; individual applications lack an equivalent denominator. An audience-and-genre framework offers a parsimonious account; resistance, professional closure and capacity management remain competing explanations the correlational design cannot distinguish.