In a sarcastic, biting dissent to a 5-4 ruling that struck down an Arizona public finance law, Kagan wrote that opponents of the matching funds law “are making a novel argument: that Arizona violated their First Amendment rights by disbursing funds to other speakers even though they could have received—but chose to spurn—the same financial assistance. Some people might call that chutzpah.”

Kagan’s efforts to communicate with a broader audience are in line with her willingness to open up the Supreme Court to the public. The court is often perceived as a closed off institution, and Kagan has spoken publicly about her view that cases in the chamber should be broadcast in order to educate the public, saying in a speech that “this is an unbelievable court to watch.”

“[Kagan] is beginning to develop a distinct and refreshing voice... a kind of snappy colloquialism interjected into the legalism that I think bodes well for her,” Parker says.

Kagan has garnered attention for two opinions in particular—her dissent in a case in which the Court decided to allow tax credit for religious institutions and her dissent in the ruling striking down the Arizona campaign finance law.

Fallon says that Kagan’s writing is marked by a “sprightly style” and that her opinions are a “pleasure and relief” to read from the “very, very turgid” style of other court opinions.

“She has turned out to be a really terrific writer,” Fallon adds.

Tushnet says that Kagan’s writing style emphasizes clarity that “at the very least newspaper reporters can understand. She puts things pretty sharply.”

THE LONG HAUL

After the Senate confirmed her to the court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. ’67 was the first to call Kagan. And in addition to congratulating the newest Justice, he went on to acknowledge that they would be spending 25 years together on the court.

“Only 25?” Kagan quipped.

At only 51, Kagan will most likely be on the bench for the long haul, leaving her plenty of time to cultivate a distinct voice and judicial philosophy.

But Kagan is still settling in. Because of her previous role as solicitor general, she was forced to recuse herself from a large number of cases this past term, and that means the 24 cases she’s ruled on may not provide much evidence for how Kagan differs from the other liberal justices on the court.

In nearly every case, Parker says that Kagan has sided with the established liberal side of the court, a pack that is “not distinct as individuals in either vote or voting pattern.”

During the past term, the liberal justices have maintained their tendency of voting together. The conservative wing—despite contrasting styles and philosophies among the justices—voted together at high rates, as well.

But over time, Kagan’s voting patterns and distinct legal reasoning may emerge more clearly. Supreme Court justices have a history of shifting in their opinions and evolving during their time on the bench. In one of the better known examples, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and then moved gradually to the left during her time on the court.