The Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases on Wednesday, one involving the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the other involving trademark law. I’m predicting the winners of the Supreme Court cases based on the number of questions asked during oral argument. For more about this method, see my post on last Term’s Aereo case.  For all of my predictions this Term, click here.

Young v. UPS asks whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), requires an employer that provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are “similar in their ability or inability to work.”

This case is difficult to predict. The Court asked the Petitioner (Young) 28 questions and the Solicitor General (as amicus curiae supporting the Petitioner) 16 questions. The Court asked the Respondent (UPS) 42 questions, 2 fewer than the Petitioner’s side. However, that differential is almost negligible, given that in several instances I had to make judgment calls on how to count questions that were interrupted by the advocate or another Justice. In other words, the total number of questions asked per side was a virtual tie.

The question count per Justice provides a more interesting picture. Five Justices asked the Petitioner’s side (including the Solicitor General) more questions: Roberts (+2), Scalia (+14), Kennedy (+7), Breyer (+6), Sotomayor (+2).

Three Justices asked the Respondent more questions: Ginsburg (+13), Alito (+1), and Kagan (+15). In fact, Justices Ginsburg and Kagan asked 74% of all questions asked of the Respondent. Meanwhile, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy asked the Respondent no questions, while Justices Scalia and Sotomayor asked only 1 question to the Respondent.

The pattern suggests a possible split along conservative and liberal lines. If I had to make a prediction based on these numbers, I would give a slight nod to the Respondent (UPS), which argued for an affirmance of the Fourth Circuit’s decision upholding the grant of summary judgment against the Petitioner on her claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. But my confidence level is not high on this prediction.

Figure 1.

The second case, Hana Financial v. Hana Bank, asks whether the jury or the court determines whether use of an older trademark may be tacked to a newer one.

This case is much easier to predict. The Court asked the Petitioner 35 questions, 14 more than asked of the Respondent and the Solicitor General (supporting the Respondent) combined. The question disparity indicates a win for the Respondent (Hana Bank), which argued for an affirmance of the Ninth Circuit’s treatment of the issue of tacking as a question of fact for the jury. The Solicitor General generally supported that view. An affirmance appears to be likely.

Figure 2.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases on Tuesday, one involving trademark law and the other, criminal law. I’m predicting the winners of the Supreme Court cases based on the number of questions asked during oral argument. For more about this method, see my post on last Term’s Aereo case.

B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. asks (1) whether the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s finding of a likelihood of confusion precludes respondent from relitigating that issue in infringement litigation, in which likelihood of confusion is an element; and (2) whether, if issue preclusion does not apply, the district court was obliged to defer to the Board’s finding of a likelihood of confusion absent strong evidence to rebut it.

This case is easy to predict. The Court asked the Respondent (Hargis Industries) 54 questions, 24 more than asked of the Petitioner (B&B Hardware) and the Solicitor General (as amicus curiae supporting the Petitioner) combined. This may well be the largest disparity in questions I’ve seen in a case. [UPDATE: M&G Polymers v. Tackett did have a larger differential of 27 questions.]

The large question disparity strongly suggests a win for the Petitioner, who argued for reversal of the Eighth Circuit’s decision and failure to apply issue preclusion, in a subsequent infringement action, to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s finding of a likelihood of confusion during an opposition proceeding. The Solicitor General supported the Petitioner’s view. Reversal appears to be likely.

Figure 1.

The second case, Whitfield v. U.S., asks whether 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e), which provides a minimum sentence of ten years in prison and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for a bank robber who forces another person “to accompany him” during the robbery or while in flight, requires proof of more than a de minimis movement of the victim.

Although the question count is close, my prediction is a win for the Respondent (Solicitor General), who argued for the affirmance of the Petitioner’s conviction. The Court asked the Petitioner (Whitfield) 6 more questions (see Figure 2). This overall figure, though, is somewhat inflated by Justice Scalia’s 18 questions, an unusually high number for a Justice to ask one party. But the question count by Justice also favors the Respondent. Five Justices asked the Petitioner more questions: Scalia (+14), Kennedy (+1), Ginsburg (+4), Alito (+5), and Sotomayor (+3). By comparison, three Justices asked the Respondent more questions: Roberts (+14), Breyer (+3), and Kagan (+4). My confidence level is not high, given the small differences, but it’s higher than it was for yesterday’s Elonis case. I give a slight nod to the Solicitor General.

Figure 2.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases on Monday, including an important First Amendment case involving threats on Facebook. I’m predicting the winners of the Supreme Court cases based on the number of questions asked during oral argument. For more about this method, see my post on last Term’s Aereo case.

Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n asks whether a federal agency must engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) before it can significantly alter an interpretive rule that articulates an interpretation of an agency regulation.

This case is easy to predict. The Court asked the Petitioner (Solicitor General arguing for Secretary of Labor Perez) 46 questions, 15 more than asked of the Respondent (Mortgage Bankers Ass’n). The large question disparity strongly suggests a win for the Respondent, who argued for an affirmance of the D.C. Circuit opinion that invalidated the Department of Labor’s 2010 interpretative rule (i.e., that mortgage-loan officers are not exempt from the requirement for overtime pay) because the agency failed to subject its change in position to APA notice-and-comment rulemaking.

UPDATE: After receiving a number of comments from observers who thought the oral argument showed the Court was clearly siding with the Petitioner (contrary to my prediction), I went back over the question count per Justice.  I still don’t see a victory for the Petitioner.  Six Justices asked the Petitioner more questions by a pretty decent margin: Roberts (+7), Scalia (+6), Kennedy (+4), Breyer (+3), Alito (+4), and Sotomayor (+4).   Also, the Justices asked 8 questions during the Petitioner’s rebuttal, which is an unusually high number.

Only Justices Ginsburg (+3) and Kagan (+10) asked the Respondent more questions.  Justice Kagan dominated the questioning of the Respondent with over 30% of the questions asked.  Based on some observers’ comments, apparently the Respondent’s lawyer may not have handled Justice Kagan’s questions that well (which might explain why Justice Kagan asked numerous follow-up questions).   If the Court does side with the Petitioner, I would be surprised.  Of course, the predictive value of question counting has its limits.  This could be a case in which the question count masks a different dynamic.   For example, if the Petitioner does prevail, the high number of questions to the Petitioner could reveal the Court’s wrestling with the precise way to craft its ruling for the Petitioner, and the low number of questions to the Respondent could reveal the Court simply “not buying” the Respondent’s argument to engage it.   We’ll have to wait and see.  But I’m sticking with my original prediction based on the question counting method.

Figure 1.

The second case, Elonis v. U.S., asks (1) whether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. Black, conviction of threatening another person under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten, as required by the Ninth Circuit and the supreme courts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont; or whether it is enough to show that a “reasonable person” would regard the statement as threatening, as held by other federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort; and (2) whether, as a matter of statutory interpretation, conviction of threatening another person under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten.

This case is a close call. Although the Court asked the Petitioner (Elonis) 6 more questions (see Figure 2), the overall question count for the Petitioner is somewhat inflated by Justice Scalia’s 19 questions, an unusually high number for a Justice to ask one party. Looking at the questions asked by Justice tells a somewhat different story. Four Justices (Scalia (+16), Ginsburg (+1), Alito (+7), Kagan (+2)) asked the Petitioner more questions, and four Justices (Roberts (+6), Kennedy (+3), Breyer (+5), Sotomayor (+6)) asked the Respondent more questions. The alignment of Justices defies the typical conservative-liberal Justice pattern in close cases.

So who wins? It is very hard to predict based on these numbers. Moreover, given the two questions presented for review, it is certainly possible that both sides could win on some issues. Therefore, my confidence level is not high, but if I had to pick a winner, I would give a slight nod to the Petitioner (Elonis).

Three Justices asked at least 5 fewer questions to the Petitioner, whereas only two Justices asked at least 5 fewer questions to the Respondent. In other words, even though the Justices split 4-4 in terms of which side they asked fewer questions (Justice Thomas asked no questions), more Justices asked the Petitioner far fewer questions (by a differential of at least 5 questions). Justices Ginsburg and Kagan asked the Petitioner only one and two more questions, respectively, a differential that does not provide much basis to suggest they are leaning to the Respondent’s side. I also find significant Chief Justice Roberts’ 6 fewer questions to the Respondent, a differential that does suggest a leaning to that side. A possible majority for Elonis could be Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, plus possibly Kagan. On the other hand, Justice Kennedy is harder to predict based on his question count, so the decision may well end up a 5-4 decision.

Figure 2.