Comparative Exceptionalism? Strategy and Ideology in the High Court of Australia.

This article provides a comprehensive empirical analysis of oral argument in the High Court of Australia from 1995 to 2019, comparing judicial behavior to that of the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite significant institutional differences—such as unlimited oral argument time, variable panel sizes, and a more powerful Chief Justice in Australia—the study finds similar patterns of strategic judicial advocacy in both courts, with justices engaging more actively against the side they ultimately oppose. Judicial ideology, gender, experience, and the identity and ideology of the Chief Justice significantly influence oral argument behavior in Australia, challenging the notion that the Australian judiciary is apolitical. The findings suggest that strategic advocacy is a common feature of apex courts in Western liberal democracies, shaped but not negated by differing institutional designs.