Dissenting with feeling: The tone of dissents in the 2024-25 term

Empirical SCOTUS is a recurring series by Adam Feldman that looks at Supreme Court data, primarily in the form of opinions and oral arguments, to provide insights into the justices’ decision making and what we can expect from the court in the future.

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

Dissenting opinions at the Supreme Court do more than express disagreement. At their best, they raise red flags about legal interpretations, signal internal rifts on the bench, and even shape future law. From Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson  to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s in Shelby County v. Holder, dissents often become the most memorable part of a case – not because they won the day, but because they challenged the court’s direction with clarity and conviction.

But what if we could systematically measure how forcefully a justice dissents – not just what they argue, but the tone of their argument? That’s the aim of my recent analysis of every Supreme Court dissent issued during the 2024-25 term. This study goes beyond legal outcomes and digs into the emotional and rhetorical dynamics of judicial disagreement to paint a deeper picture of Supreme Court decision making. .

Methodology

Using natural language analysis, I scored dissents along two key dimensions, using a scale of 0 to 1, with 1 as more negative, critical, or intense.

• Polarity: This dimension measures how critical or supportive the language in the opinion is (with more negative values indicating stronger disagreement). For example, words and phrases that signal negative polarity include “violate,” “unconstitutional,” “abdicates,” “unlawful,” and “threat.”
• Emotional intensity: This dimension captures how forcefully or passionately the opinion is written, regardless of whether it’s positive or negative. For instance, emotionally intense words or phrases include “grave attack,” “shamefully,” “disillusionment,” “existential threat,” and “mortal wound,” all reflecting strong affect and urgency. Low emotional-intensity language tends to be more neutral or technical, with words like “procedural,” “rule,” “standard,” “clarify,” and “methodical,” which signal calm, measured discussion.

The result is a revealing map of how justices express their dissent – not just who disagrees, but who raises their voice to sound the alarm.

A look at the court’s most striking dissents

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent in Trump v. CASA stood out as both the most emotionally intense (at .92) and the most negatively polarized (at .05) opinion of the term. In this case, the court limited the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions – a significant constraint on judicial power to check executive actions.

Jackson didn’t hold back. She described the ruling as an “existential threat to the rule of law” and “profoundly dangerous,” and she warned that the court had “gifted the Executive with the prerogative of sometimes disregarding the law.” Her language went beyond legal critique: The dissent was an urgent and moral appeal, with warnings about the erosion of constitutional government.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in Trump v. J.G.G. followed closely in tone (scoring 0.91 in emotional intensity and 0.11 in polarity). Sotomayor objected to the court’s decision to vacate an order that would have prevented the deportation of detainees, expressing concern that people were being removed from the country before courts had a chance to review their cases. She sharply criticized what she saw as an erosion of legal protections and described the government’s actions as “subvert[ing] the judicial process.” Her dissent, too, was deeply emotional and highly critical of the majority decision.  

Top 5 most emotionally intense and lowest polarity dissents

This chart highlights the five dissents with the strongest emotional tone and the most negative (critical) language. (Chief Justice Roberts is not included here, as he did not author any dissents during this term.) Jackson and Sotomayor dominate the chart, particularly in major constitutional disputes involving immigration and executive authority.

What’s notable is how these scores reflect not just disagreement but how justices choose to express it. These are not routine dissents – as described above, they’re urgent interventions meant to spotlight what the dissenting justices see as serious dangers.

Measuring restraint: Justice Neil Gorsuch and the moderate voice

Not all dissenting justices reached for such heightened rhetoric. Justice Neil Gorsuch, for example, dissented in Parrish v. United States over a procedural matter involving appellate timelines for an inmate claiming that he had been unlawfully held by prison officials in administrative segregation. Gorsuch’s tone was calm and focused on institutional process. He suggested deferring the issue to the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules, arguing that the judicial rulemaking body was better positioned to resolve the issue before the court. For example, Gorsuch wrote: “Rather than take up problems the Rules Committee can solve and has announced its interest in solving … I believe the wiser and more efficient course is to let the Committee get on with its work.”

This dissent scored 0.46 in polarity – suggesting moderate disagreement – and just 0.25 in emotional intensity, indicating a restrained, methodical tone. Gorsuch’s dissent was legalistic, not a rhetorical broadside. His writing serves as a reminder that dissent doesn’t have to be fiery.

This heatmap compares emotional intensity across justices and cases. The darker the cell, the more emotionally charged the dissent.

Again, the pattern is clear: Jackson and Sotomayor consistently write with high emotional intensity, especially in cases touching on executive power, immigration, and civil liberties. These are areas where both justices often raise alarms about constitutional erosion or violations of individual rights.

Other justices – like Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh – tend to show lower emotional intensity, though not necessarily less disagreement. Their dissents often emphasize legal precision and institutional procedure rather than rhetorical urgency.

This visualization tracks the degree of disagreement expressed by justices across different cases. Darker shades represent stronger negative sentiment.

Here again, Jackson and Sotomayor stand out for writing the most critical dissents, especially in ideologically charged cases. But the heatmap also reveals some less obvious dynamics. For instance, Justice Amy Coney Barrett appears in several moderately negative dissents, often emphasizing legal reasoning over emotional tone. Meanwhile, Justice Elena Kagan’s dissents reflect a relatively higher polarity – suggesting that even when she disagrees, her language tends to be more neutral or conciliatory.

This chart offers a broader view, showing each justice’s average tone across all their dissents for the term. The takeaway? Jackson and Sotomayor are the most consistent in delivering passionate and critical dissents, while Gorsuch and Kagan generally favor more restrained, neutral tones.  

This difference in tone may reflect deeper judicial philosophies – not just what the law says, but how it should be communicated to the public, to history, and to future courts.

Why this matters: the voice behind the robe

This kind of analysis gives us a new way to understand the court – not just as a legal institution, but as a human one. Justices aren’t interchangeable interpreters of law. They bring different temperaments, rhetorical styles, and senses of urgency to their work.

A passionate dissent can serve as a warning, a political signal, or a call to action. A quiet, technical dissent might seek to persuade insiders or preserve institutional legitimacy. Both styles matter, and both tell us something about how justices understand their role – and the stakes of the cases before them.

As we head into future terms, keeping an eye not just on what the court decides, but how it communicates disagreement could help us better track shifts in the institution’s internal dynamics and public messaging. Dissent, in this light, becomes a mirror – reflecting not only doctrinal differences but the emotional registers of the justices.