In the realm of judicial opinion writing, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett stands out for her distinctive style, characterized by a relentless focus on active verbs over nominalizations. This approach becomes evident in her recent opinion in
Watson v. Republican National Committee, where her prose breathes life into legal proceedings typically ensnared in complex jargon.
While discussing election laws, Barrett deftly employs verbs that paint vivid action. For instance, she writes, “Congress may ‘override'” a state’s election decisions and “Congress intervened” in setting election schedules. This choice of language stands in stark contrast to the writing in the notable case of
Baker v. Carr, authored by Justice William Brennan, where the frequent use of nominalizations like “apportionment” tends to obscure the narrative.
Barrett skillfully selects subjects outside the realm of human actors, transforming entities like the “elections clause” into active participants that “empower” and the “Constitution” that “lodges” power. Such stylistic choices align her work with the “classic style” advocated by cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker in his book
“The Sense of Style”.
The problem with nominalizations—or “zombie nouns” as some term them—is their tendency to transform lively verbs into dormant sentence components. This issue is not just stylistic but impacts comprehension and engagement. A frequent offender, Brennan’s writing in
Baker v. Carr presents events passively, missing an opportunity to deliver a more compelling and dynamic narrative.
By choosing precise, active verbs, Barrett not only simplifies complex legal ideas but also makes her writing accessible to a broader audience beyond legal practitioners. Her method encourages aspiring legal writers to scrutinize their own prose. As noted on the
Scotus Blog, eliminating unnecessary nominalizations, particularly in introductory segments, and focusing on subjects that genuinely perform actions can enhance clarity and engagement.
Barrett exemplifies how judicial opinions can transcend the boundaries of traditional legal writing. Her conscious effort to depict action over abstraction marks her as an influential figure in the landscape of legal narrative, continuing the dialogue on how judicial texts might better serve their varied audiences.