Chief Justice Roberts once said his goal as an oral advocate was to get the Court to ask his side the fewest questions. Presumably, the more questions a side gets from the Justices is an indicator of the weakness of that side’s position. Does that dictum play out in the Roberts Court’s Indian law cases? Note that tribal interests have yet to prevail in the Roberts Court.
The answer appears to be yes.; the one exception being United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, in which the questions were evenly distributed. The questions were even in last week’s Ramah argument as well, suggesting a close case.
The average number of questions asked of the tribal interests — 399 questions/7 arguments = 57 questions
The average number of questions asked of advocates opposing tribal interests — 288/7 = 41 questions
Here is the list:
Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co. (2008 )
72 questions for tribal advocate/federal government amicus; 58 questions for bank
Carcieri v. Salazar (2009)
58 questions for the tribal interests/federal govt; 40 questions for the state
Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs (2009)
67 questions for the OHA and the federal government amicus; 29 questions for the state
United States v. Navajo Nation (2009)
48 questions for the tribal advocate; 24 for the government
United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation (2011)
38 questions for the tribal advocate; 40 for the government
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation (2011)
47 questions for the tribal advocate; 30 questions for the government
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter (2012)
69 questions to the tribal advocate; 67 questions to the government
Turtle Talk 
I find this even more interesting when one considers that, in all of these cases, the non-tribal interest was the petitioner. While I can’t speak to Supreme Court practice, the statistical probability of petitioners/appellants (1) receiving fewer questions; and (2) obtaining a reversal in all of these cases would, in any other appellate setting, be phenomenal.