HIDING WITH WORDS - OBFUSCATION, AVOIDANCE, AND FEDERAL-JURISDICTION OPINIONS

In this Article, Professor Laura Little presents her empirical study o f linguistic devices within the holdings of Supreme Court opinions. Th e study scrutinized federal court jurisdiction decisions in search of grammatical structures identified by critical linguists as obfuscating the meaning of written communications. Professor Little statistically analyzes her data and interprets the results in light of contemporary federal jurisdiction theory. The end product holds interest: the data reveal that Supreme Court opinion writers employ the most common obfu scatory devices more often in the holdings of federal jurisdiction opi nions than in the holdings of decisions on the merits of disputes. Thi s finding supports federal jurisdiction scholars' view that Supreme Co urt Justices cake license with jurisdictional rulings to indulge ulter ior motives, such as disguising decisions on the merits of cases, cont rolling the development of federal constitutional rights, and ducking difficult issues of federal law. Whether or nor these motives actually impel the Justices in framing federal jurisdiction holdings, Professo r Little argues, the public suffers given the particular importance of clarity in jurisdictional rulings.