The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Hemani offers a noteworthy case study into the strategic use of language in judicial opinions, particularly how Supreme Court justices can leverage sentence structure for rhetorical power. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion demonstrates the importance of architectural choices in writing, highlighting that effective persuasion often lies in the structural elements of language.
In the case, which can be accessed here, Hemani was charged as an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance. Despite initial predictions that the government would prevail, Gorsuch structured his narrative in a way that subtly led to Hemani’s victory. The crux of the argument was whether prohibiting Hemani from possessing firearms due to marijuana use was consistent with the Second Amendment. Gorsuch’s opinion marked a tactical use of language, where sentence endings became crucial in emphasizing key information that swayed the judicial outcome.
Justice Gorsuch’s craft lies in his sentence construction. By placing subjects and verbs together near the start of a sentence, he allows critical facts to occupy the “stress position” or the end of the sentence, as termed by writing experts like George Gopen and Joseph Williams. This technique creates a rhythmic narrative that underscores the points most salient to the court’s rationale, similar to Chief Justice John Roberts’ style in other significant cases (Learning Resources v. Trump).
For example, the opinion details how Hemani, despite using marijuana regularly, led a stable life and had no history of violent conduct or addiction. When the government’s lack of tangible evidence against Hemani was placed strategically toward the sentence ends, it diminished the perceived gravity of the charges. Meanwhile, any details that might have undermined his position were placed where they would attract less attention, typically in the middle of the sentence or within dependent clauses.
Justice Gorsuch’s approach exemplifies a methodical, almost scientific exploitation of sentence structure that legal writers, particularly those involved in drafting arguments and opinions, may find inspiring. His choices demonstrate the power inherent in simple writing and how creating a deliberate focus on sentence architecture can serve as an instrument for advancing legal narratives. Further insights regarding writing strategies can be gained from experts such as George Gopen and Joseph Williams, who study how reader expectations can be manipulated through structural choices.
This case palpably illustrates the saying by Hemingway that “Prose is architecture, not interior decoration.” As Gorsuch penpoints, it is the placement of subjects, verbs, and stress positions that facilitate potent legal storytelling, not ornate language.
For a further in-depth analysis of the opinion and more context, visit the full article on SCOTUSblog.