Prior to attending law school, Olivia graduated summa cum laude from the State University of New York at Geneseo, where she earned her B.S. in Business Administration, with a minor in Political Science. She previously clerked at Wilcenski & Pleat PLLC before law school, and at R.A. Fuerst Law Group, P.C. during her 1L summer.
Beginning in September 2026, she will be returning as a full-time litigation associate at Phillips Lytle LLP, where she previously worked as a summer associate.
The power to assign majority opinions is one of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court’s most influential authorities. It helps shape not only the reasoning of individual cases, but also the development of precedent.
Although opinion assignment is often viewed as an internal administrative function, it also serves as a powerful tool through which the Chief Justice can affect the substance of the law, preserve majority coalitions, and influence public perception of the Court and its decisions.
This paper examines the strategic significance of opinion assignment and the varying approaches adopted by different Chief Justices to advance their broader goals for the Court. By comparing the assignment strategies of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Chief Justice Roberts, it demonstrates how these differing approaches can shape case outcomes as well as the internal dynamics on the Court. It then analyzes Chief Justice Roberts’ recent strategic assignments, drawing on salient Roberts Court decisions between 2022 and 2025.
This paper argues that Roberts has increasingly used opinion assignment to maintain control of the court, strengthen fragile majorities, and further his broader vision of the Court’s role during a particularly polarizing era in American politics.
________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.
