Interactional dynamics in U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments: A conversation analysis of hypotheticals and analogies in Second Amendment cases

This study proposes a Conversation Analysis (CA) approach to explore the interactional features of US Supreme Court oral arguments. Specifically, the analysis examines how pragmatic devices such as hypotheticals and analogies are produced and contested in oral arguments related to the Second Amendment. Using transcribed recordings of Supreme Court oral arguments, the research focuses on interactional sequences where justices and counsel deliberate two pivotal issues: the right to bear a firearm and the type of firearms allowed for ownership. The analysis reveals how Supreme Court justices construct hypotheticals and analogies to elicit specific responses and reinforce particular ideologies while the petitioners’ and respondents’ counsel strategically work to maintain alignment with their own arguments. The findings contribute to our understanding of discourse strategies in legal argumentation and shed light on how pragmatic devices like analogies and hypotheticals influence the interpretation of constitutional rights.