Covering: Mutable Characteristics and Perceptions of Voice in the U.S. Supreme Court

The growing emphasis on “fit” as a hiring criterion introduces the potential for a new, subtle form of discrimination (Bertrand & Duflo, 2017). Analysis of 1,901 U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments from 1998 to 2012 documents that voice-based snap judgments predict court outcomes. Male petitioners who rank below median in perceived masculinity are 7 percentage points more likely to win. This negative correlation between perceived masculinity and winning cases in the Supreme Court is more pronounced in masculine industries. Perceived femininity of women lawyers also predicts court outcomes. Democrats favor men with less masculine-sounding voices. Perceived masculinity explains additional variance in Supreme Court decisions beyond what is predicted by the best random forest prediction model. A de-biasing experiment using information and incentives in factorial design is consistent with misperceptions and taste for masculine-sounding lawyers explaining the negative correlation between perceived masculinity and Supreme Court wins.