  What happens when the Supreme Court of the United States decides a case
impacting one or more publicly-traded firms? While many have observed anecdotal
evidence linking decisions or oral arguments to abnormal stock returns, few
have rigorously or systematically investigated the behavior of equities around
Supreme Court actions. In this research, we present the first comprehensive,
longitudinal study on the topic, spanning over 15 years and hundreds of cases
and firms. Using both intra- and interday data around decisions and oral
arguments, we evaluate the frequency and magnitude of statistically-significant
abnormal return events after Supreme Court action. On a per-term basis, we find
5.3 cases and 7.8 stocks that exhibit abnormal returns after decision. In
total, across the cases we examined, we find 79 out of the 211 cases (37%)
exhibit an average abnormal return of 4.4% over a two-session window with an
average $|t|$-statistic of 2.9. Finally, we observe that abnormal returns
following Supreme Court decisions materialize over the span of hours and days,
not minutes, yielding strong implications for market efficiency in this
context. While we cannot causally separate substantive legal impact from mere
revision of beliefs, we do find strong evidence that there is indeed a "law on
the market" effect as measured by the frequency of abnormal return events, and
that these abnormal returns are not immediately incorporated into prices.
