New Study by Turner College Economist Applies Game-Theoretic Model to Fall of Roe v. Wade

The application of game theory and related mathematical approaches to explain decision-making processes of the U.S. Supreme Court is not new. Attempts to quantitatively model decisions of the U.S. Supreme court can be traced back to the mid-twentieth century. A new study by Turner College economist Frank Mixon and his co-authors Rand Ressler of Georgia Southern University and Benno Torgler of Queensland University of Technology extends the constitutional economics literature by focusing on the recent and much discussed U.S. Supreme Court ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade and, therefore, the constitutional right to an abortion. Mixon et al. focus their analysis on Justice Samuel Alito's now-famous 2022 draft opinion on Roe v. Wade, which, they argue, may have been leaked to Politico by a clerk to a conservative Supreme Court justice. According to the study, which is set to appear in a future issue of the Review of Behavioral Economics, this possibility focuses on news reports indicating that Chief Justice John Roberts was working to convince Justice Brett Kavanaugh to join him and the liberal justices in upholding Roe v. Wade. As the study explains utilizing a game-theoretic vignette presented in extensive form, the leaking of Justice Alito’s draft opinion on Roe v. Wade can be seen as an unconditional strategic move referred to as "cutting off communication," which results in a player’s inability to receive messages from another player, thus committing the first player to a particular action. In this case, the leak served conservative justices by cutting off communication between Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, thus thwarting the establishment of a case-specific coalition in this particular episode.