arXiv2025
Judicial opinions once considered sound can lose relevance over time. Yet, little has been known, both systematically and at scale, about how judicial reasoning has evolved. Here, we analyze four million US court decisions from 1800 to 2000, quantifying each rulings' disruptiveness, i.e., the extent to which it breaks from established citation pathways. We find that such pathbreaks have declined over time, indicating that courts have become increasingly constrained by precedent. This growing inertia appears to be driven by two structural factors. The first is precedent overload, evidenced by the volume of case law outpacing population growth (scaling exponent of 1.7). The second is the rise of ideological polarization within the judiciary, which introduces institutional uncertainty that prompts greater deference to established precedent. Despite this overall tendency toward path dependence, we find that a relatively small number of high-authority courts continue to shape legal discourse through top-down interventions. Our findings recast legal reasoning as an evolutionary process shaped by structural growth, institutional memory, and hierarchical structure, incorporating broader theories of innovation and organizational adaptation into the study of law.