This article will analyze the transcript of oral argument in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill and compare and contrast the apparent predispositions of the Justices as evidenced by their inquiries and remarks at the Supreme Court hearing with the positions ultimately taken by them. In this connection, the article will evaluate the hypothesis that several of the Justices assumed specific roles during the argument based upon their predispositions concerning the substantive issues involved. Last, some general observations concerning predictability of Supreme Court decisions based upon oral argument interchange will be made.
Donald S. Cohen, Judicial Predictability in United States Supreme Court Advocacy: An Analysis of the Oral Argument in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 2 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 89 (1978).