Law & Linguistics

RESOURCES ON LAW & LINGUISTICS
www.clarkcunningham.org/Law-Linguistics.html

Cases using or discussing corpus-based linguistic analysis

Law review articles using or discussing corpus-based linguistic analysis

Presentations using or discussing corpus-based linguistic analysis

Websites for using corpus-based linguistic analysis

Media coverage on applying linguistics to legal analysis

Briefs

Lucia v SEC, 138 S.Ct. 2044 (2018)
Amicus Brief of Corpus Linguistics Scholars in Lucia v. SEC (U.S. 2018) (Laurence Anthony, Waseda University (Japan), Ronald Butters, Duke (emeritus); Malcom Coulthard, Aston University (emeritus); Mark Davies, BYU; Jesse Egbert, Northern Arizona University; William Eggington, BYU; Edward Finnegan, USC (emeritus); Tammy Gales, Hofstra; Tim Grant, Aston University; Stefan Th. Gries, UC Santa Barbara; Jack Grieve, University of Birmingham (UK); Tony McEnry, Lancaster University (UK); Jeffrey Parker, BYU; Rui Sousa-Silva, University of Porto (Portugal); Sara White, BYU. Filed by James Heilpern, BYU.

Rimini Street v Oracle, 139 S.Ct. 873 (2019)
Amicus Brief of Corpus Linguistics Scholars in Rimini Street v. Oracle (Laurence Anthony, Waseda University (Japan), William Eggington, BYU; Tammy Gales, Hofstra; Tim Grant, Aston University; Stefan Th. Gries, UC Santa Barbara; Benjamin Lee, BYU; Tony McEnry, Lancaster University (UK); Jeffrey Parker, BYU; Rui Sousa-Silva, University of Porto (Portugal); Lawrence Solan, Brooklyn Law School; Sara White, BYU). Filed by James Heilpern, BYU.

Wright v. Spaulding, 939 F.3d 695 (6th Cir. 2019)
Letter from the court to lawyers for the parties requesting supplemental briefs on original meaning of the Article III Cases or Controversies requirement (May 28, 2019) (asking "How does the corpus help inform that determination? See https://lcl.byu.edu/projects/cofea/.").
Amicus brief filed by Law & Linguistics Research Team (July 25, 2019)
Order granting motion to file amicus brief and directing the amici to file a further supplemental brief no later than August 15, 2019 (August 2, 2019)
Supplemental amicus brief filed by Law & Linguistics Research Team (August 22, 2019) (Prof. Clark D. Cunningham, Georgia State University; Prof. Ute Roemer, Georgia State University; Professor Jesse E. Egbert, Northern Arizona University; Haoshan Ren, PhD student, Georgia State University; Noor Abbady, MA Applied Linguistics, Georgia State University; Margaret Wood, PhD student, Northern Arizona University; Heather Kuhn, J.D. Georgia State University.)
See 939 F.3d at 700 n.1 ("We asked the parties to file supplemental briefs on the original meaning of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, specifically whether the corpus of Founding-era American English helped illuminate that meaning. A team of corpus linguistics researchers submitted two amicus briefs as well. We are grateful to both the parties and the amici for their hard work.”)
See also Haoshan Ren, Margaret Wood, Clark D. Cunningham, Noor Abbady, Ute Römer, Heather Kuhn & Jesse Egbert, “Questions Involving National Peace and Harmony” or “Injured Plaintiff Litigation”? The Original Meaning of “Cases” in Article III of the Constitution, 36 Georgia State Law Review 491 (2020), available at https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol36/iss5/8/.

Blumenthal v. Trump, 949 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2020)
Brief of Amici Curiae Professor Clark D. Cunningham and Professor Jesse Egbert in Support of Neither Party, Blumenthal v. Trump, also published on the Social Science Research Network at https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3475650 See also Clark D. Cunningham & Jesse Egbert, Using Empirical Data to Investigate the Original Meaning of “Emolument” in the Constitution , 36 Georgia State Law Review 465 (2020).

In re Trump, 958 F.3d 274 (4th Cir.2020) (en banc), dismissed as moot sub nom Trump v District of Columbia, 141 S.Ct. 1262 (Mem) (Jan. 25, 2021).
Brief for Professor Clark D. Cunningham & Professor Jesse Egbert as Amici Curiae Supporting Neither Party, 2019 WestLaw 366218, also published on the Social Science Research Network at, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3334017.
See 958 F.3d at 286 ("The President's insistence that “emoluments” indisputably include only “profit arising from office or employ” (that is, payment for services rendered in performance of a formal job), while possible, is certainly not indisputable. .... See, e.g., Brief of Amici Curiae Professor Clark D. Cunningham and Professor Jesse Egbert on Behalf of Neither Party").
See also Clark D. Cunningham & Jesse Egbert, Using Empirical Data to Investigate the Original Meaning of “Emolument” in the Constitution , 36 Georgia State Law Review 465 (2020).

Bostock v Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (2020)
Brief for Amici Curiae Corpus-Linguistics Scholars Professors Brian Slocum, Stefan Th. Gries, and Lawrence Solan in Support of Employees, (Brian Slocum, University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law; Stefan Th. Gries University of Cal. Santa Barbara; Lawrence Solan, Brooklyn Law School) See also William N. Eskridge Jr., Brian G. Slocum, & Stefan Th. Gries, The Meaning of Sex: Dynamic Words, Novel Applications, and Original Public Meaning, 119 Mich. L. Rev. 1503 (2021), available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol119/iss7/3

Young v Hawaii, 992 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2021)
Brief of Corpus Linguistics Professors and Experts as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellees, Young v. Hawaii (filed June 20, 2020) (Dennis Baron, University of Illinois; Alison LaCroix, University of Chicago, Stefan Th. Gries University of Cal. Santa Barbara; Jason Merchant, University of Chicago), http://home.uchicago.edu/~merchant/pubs/2020-06-04_CorpusLinguisticsAmicusBrief.pdf

Nelson v State, 312 Ga. 375, 863 S.E.2d 61 (2021)
--Order Granting Appeal (Jan. 7, 2021) ("The Court is particularly concerned with the following: When is a search warrant for the contents of an electronic device 'executed' under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution?")
--Amicus Brief of Law-Linguistics Research Team in Support of Neither Party (filed April 19, 2021) (Prof. Clark D. Cunningham, Georgia State University; Amanda R. Black & Maria Kostromitina, PhD students, Northern Arizona University; Megan Wells & Bradford Poston, law students, Georgia State University)
--Order for Oral Argument (Apr. 29, 2021) ("following appellant's opening argument, the Court will then immediately hear from neutral amicus counsel who shall have 10 minutes to argue")
--Oral Argument (Aug. 26, 2021), https://www.gasupreme.us/oral-arguments-august-26-2021/
--- Partial Transcript of Oral Argument
--Slides for amicus oral argument
See 863 S.E.2d at 64 n.4 ("“We thank the amicus curiae for its brief and oral argument regarding the application of corpus linguistics to some of the questions presented.”)
See also What Does it Mean to "Search a Cell Phone?", presentation, 7th Annual Law & Corpus Linguistic Conference, Feb. 4, 2022 ppt pdf

Jones v Bonta, 34 F.4th 704 (9th Cir. 2022), vacated and remanded, 47 F.4th 1124 (2022)
-- Order for supplemental briefing to be filed in 21 days on whether corpus linguistics helps inform the determination of the original public meaning of 2nd amendment (March 26, 2021)
-- Plaintiff-Appellants' Supplemental Brief (April 23, 2021) ("The methodology of corpus linguistics suffers from several fatal conceptual difficulties that make it an unreliable guide to the original public meaning of the Second Amendment.")
-- Appellees' Supplemental Brief (April 23, 2021) ("Corpus linguistics is a new and emerging tool that presents opportunities and challenges in the search for original public meaning. Corpus linguistics may be of limited value, particularly at this stage of the case.")
--Appellees' Response to Appellants' Supplemental Brief (May 3, 2021) ("Corpus linguistics is unlikely to assist in resolving this interlocutory appeal and should be approached with caution [but] may prove to be a useful addition to the jurist's toolbox in future cases.")
--Plaintiff-Appellants' Responsive Supplemental Brief (May 3, 2021) ("Corpus linguistics' flaws make it an unreliable guide to the Second Amendment's original meaning.")
-- Motion of Neal Goldfarb for Leave to File a Reply Brief as Amicus Curiae Supporting Neither Party (May 3, 2021) ("much of the information about corpus linguistics in the parties' supplemental briefs is false or misleading")(motion dened, May 4, 2021)
34 F.4th at 714 n.6 ("Corpus linguistics “is a powerful tool for discerning how the public would have understood a statute's text at the time it was enacted,” and “[c]ourts should consider adding this tool to their belts.” [Citing Wilson v. Safelite Grp., Inc., 930 F.3d 429, 439-40 (6th Cir. 2019) (Thapar, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)] We asked the parties to file supplemental briefing addressing in part the applicability of corpus linguistics to this case. We thank the parties for their hard work. Because neither of them asks us to apply corpus linguistics here, we decline to consider it further.")

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022)
-- Brief for Corpus Linguistics Professors and Experts as Amici Curiae (Dennis Baron, University of Illinois; Alison LaCroix, University of Chicago; Stefan Th. Gries University of Cal. Santa Barbara; Jason Merchant, University of Chicago)
-- Brief for Neal Goldfarb as Amicus Curiae

142 S.Ct. at 2178 (Breyer, J. dissenting)
("The majority in [District of Columbia v Heller] rejected Justice Stevens’ argument that the Second Amendment's use of the words “bear Arms” drew on an idiomatic meaning that, at the time of the founding, commonly referred to military service. 554 U.S. at 586, 128 S.Ct. 2783. Linguistics experts now tell us that the majority was wrong to do so. See, e.g., Brief for Corpus Linguistics Professors and Experts as Amici Curiae (Brief for Linguistics Professors); Brief for Neal Goldfarb as Amicus Curiae; Brief for Americans Against Gun Violence as Amicus Curiae 13–15. Since Heller was decided, experts have searched over 120,000 founding-era texts from between 1760 and 1799, as well as 40,000 texts from sources dating as far back as 1475, for historical uses of the phrase “bear arms,” and they concluded that the phrase was overwhelmingly used to refer to “ ‘war, soldiering, or other forms of armed action by a group rather than an individual.’ ” Brief for Linguistics Professors 11, 14; see also D. Baron, Corpus Evidence Illuminates the Meaning of Bear Arms, 46 Hastings Const. L. Q. 509, 510 (2019) (“Non-military uses of bear arms in reference to hunting or personal self-defense are not just rare, they are almost nonexistent”); id., at 510–511 (reporting 900 instances in which “bear arms” was used to refer to military or collective use of firearms and only 7 instances that were either ambiguous or without a military connotation).)

State of Utah v. Planned Parenthood Association (Utah Supreme Court)
Amicus Brief of Pro-Life Utah (Dec. 9, 2022) (filed by Thomas R. Lee, Lee Nielsen)
Amicus Brief of Neal Goldfarb (Feb. 3, 2023) (abstract)

Back to Clark Cunningham Home Page