No. 25-498 · argued October 6, 2026
Winston R. Anderson, et al., Petitioners v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, et al.
Post-argument lean
A forecast from the argument alone
56%
chance the petitioner prevails, from how the bench divided its words
Awaiting decision
The Justices’ words, by the side they were spoken to
66%
34%
To the petitioner · 2,090 words, 84 turns38 turns, 1,077 words · to the respondent
The bench spoke 1.9× as many words to the petitioner as to the other side. Since OT2017 the side that draws more of the bench’s words has tended to lose, so this argument reads below the usual 70% petitioner win rate.
Each Justice’s questioning
Votes appear once the case is decided
| Justice | Words to the petitioner ◂ │ ▸ to the respondent | Lean to petitioner |
|---|---|---|
| Roberts, C.J. | 64%-5 | |
| Thomas | 44%-15 | |
| Alito | 41%-20 | |
| Sotomayor | 47%-11 | |
| Kagan | 52%-9 | |
| Gorsuch | 47%-19 | |
| Kavanaugh | 25%-44 | |
| Barrett | 69%+1 | |
| Jackson | 46%-15 |
A Justice’s lean is the chance they vote for the petitioner, from their own word split and the whole bench’s; the small figure is the change from their usual petitioner rate. Click a row to pick out that Justice in the transcript.
Listen and read
243 turns
Press play, or click any line of the transcript to start there
The Court’s recording · each line timed to the audio
Loading the transcript…
From the Court’s official transcript.
October Term 2026, lean against result
Each dot an argument; click one to open it
About this page. Built from the Court’s own transcript and recording.
- The lean. Backtested leave-one-Term-out on 511 decided arguments (OT2017–OT2025): 72% of outcomes called right against 70.5% for “the petitioner always wins”, with forecast error (Brier score) 0.197 against 0.209. It refines a strong base rate more than it flips calls. Each Justice’s lean: 67.5% of 4,408 votes against 63.4% for their usual rate.
- Words, not questions. Every Justice turn in an advocate’s time counts toward that advocate’s side; amicus time counts for neither. Counting turns adds nothing once words are counted, and the raw rule “more questions loses” does worse than the base rate, because petitioners argue first and have rebuttal.
- Timing. Each line is timed to the recording: speech recognition matched the Court’s audio to its transcript, and its own text is used for nothing but the clock. Click a line to hear it.
- Method and findings: docs/argument-transcripts.md.