Heard or Halted? Gender, Interruptions, and Emotional Tone in U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

This study examines how interruptions during U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments shape both the semantic content and emotional tone of advocates' speech, with a focus on gendered dynamics in judicial discourse. Using the ConvoKit Supreme Court Corpus (2010-2019), we analyze 12,663 speech chunks from advocate-justice interactions to assess whether interruptions alter the meaning of an advocate's argument and whether interruptions toward female advocates exhibit more negative emotional valence. Semantic shifts are quantified using GloVe-based sentence embeddings, while sentiment is measured through lexicon-based analysis. We find that semantic similarity between pre- and post-interruption speech remains consistently high, suggesting that interruptions do not substantially alter argumentative content. However, interruptions directed at female advocates contain significantly higher levels of negative sentiment. These results deepen empirical understanding of gendered communication in elite institutional settings and demonstrate the value of computational linguistic methods for studying power, discourse, and equity in judicial proceedings.