Search

Studies of policy making by courts need to examine the actual policy adopted in the majority opinion rather than studying votes. The authors examine the responsiveness of state supreme courts to precedents announced by the US Supreme Court by examining their treatment of the precedents in their opinions, testing the utility of precedent vitality versus the impact of ideological preferences. They find that the vitality of Supreme Court precedent is a strong predictor of the way in which the precedent is treated by state courts, even after controlling for ideological distance and institutional features of state court systems. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this study, we explore gendered patterns of voting, and whether such patterns appear only after a critical mass of female justices is reached by analyzing the votes of justices in the Supreme Court of Canada. We employ a logistic regression model of the differences in the voting behavior of male versus female justices, using the universe of Supreme Court votes from 1982 through 2007. Our analysis supports the conclusion that women vote more liberally on civil rights, equality, and private economic cases, and more conservatively on criminal cases. However, we find no evidence that indicates a need for a critical mass of women justices for them to vote their sincere preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The focus of this analysis is whether a strategic perspective provides a useful approach that enhances an understanding of broad patterns of judicial decision making on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The authors examine whether it is reasonable in the majority of cases for appeals court judges to modify their behavior when necessary to avoid reversal by the Supreme Court. This assessment utilizes statistical analyses and interviews from twenty-eight judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Based on a three-part argument, the authors conclude that a strategic perspective is not helpful in understanding the decision calculus of appeals court judges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most of the empirical work on the decision making of justices on the Supreme Court of Canada has taken as its exclusive focus the divided decisions of the Court. In contrast to this extensive body of research on divided decision, the much more limited knowledge of unanimous decisions is troubling because such decisions constitute nearly three-quarters of all of the formal decisions of the Court. The analysis reported below provides a first step towards understanding the neglected nature of unanimous decisions. This investigation of the nature and causes of unanimity in the Supreme Court of Canada explores two competing explanations: one drawn from the most widely accepted general explanation of judicial voting (that is, the attitudinal model) and the other from the perspectives of the justices themselves. To determine that perspective, the author interviewed ten of the current or recent justices on the Court. After describing these two alternative accounts of unanimity, empirical tests are conducted of the implications of each view. We find substantially more support for the perspectives of the justices than for the perspective derived from the attitudinal model on unanimity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study seeks to add to the current understanding of the political nature of the Supreme Court of Canada. We analyze a data set consisting of all nonunanimous published Supreme Court decisions for the period 1949 to 2000. A prior study by Tate and Sittiwong (1989) suggested a model of judge attributes for the period 1949 to 1985. We build on that analysis by extending the time period to 2000, which allows the impact of gender also to be assessed. We find that since the Court gained substantial docket control, the types of cases the Court hears has changed from the period studied by Tate and Sittiwong. In the more recent period, civil rights and liberties cases are much more substantial in number. We conclude some of the variables in the Tate and Sittiwong study may be time bound and we suggest a new model of attitudinal voting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Models of presidential success in the judicial appointment process assume that a president selects a nominee who will maximize his influence on the Court. The models assume that the president accurately assesses the preferences of potential nominees. We argue that these perceptions are subject to systematic errors. Specifically, the amount of information available to the evaluator (the president and his staff) of a Supreme Court nominee's policy preferences affects the accuracy of the evaluation. These models assume that the president and/or his staff can accurately predict the policy preferences of the potential nominees. We argue that the precision of these assessments is a function of the information available to the president and his staff. We test this hypothesis using the prior experience of the nominee as a measure of the information available to the president and those members of his staff assigned to investigate potential Supreme Court nominees. Using heteroskedastic probit, we find a significant relationship between the amount of information (measured as prior legislative, executive, judicial, and academic experience) and the accuracy of the assessments of the nominees' preferences. This relationships hold even after controlling for various factors including the salience the president attaches to the issues decided by the justice and the relative relationship between the preferences of the president, Senate, and the remaining sitting justices when the nomination was made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While many of the decisions of federal district court judges involve the routine application of settled legal rules, a significant minority of their decisions present the judges with the opportunity to engage in judicial policy making. A considerable body of literature suggests that when faced with policy-making opportunities, the policy preferences of the judges exert a significant impact on the nature of those decisions. The present study explores the question of whose preferences are manifested in the policy-relevant decisions of the district court judges. In particular, we seek to determine the relative impact of the preferences of the major elites involved in the selection of federal district judges: the appointing president, home state senators of the president's party, and home state elites outside the Senate who are consulted when a president makes an appointment from a state whose Senate delegation is in the hands of the opposition party. The analysis is based on all published decisions of the district courts in civil liberties, economic and labor, and criminal procedure cases decided between 1961 and 1995. We find that contrary to the expectations derived from the existing literature on district judge appointments, the political preferences of the appointing presidents are most closely related to the policy relevant decisions of the judges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assesses the impact of presidential and home state influences on judicial decision-making in the U.S. Court of Appeals. Measurement of the voting behavior of the judges; Analysis on the selection of the lower federal court judges; Effects of state influences on the selection process.

The article examines the effects of judge gender on decision making in state supreme courts in the United States. A variety of reasons have been offered to explain why female judges might appear to be more liberal than male, judges. First, the differences may be an artifact of the federal system: women may only be selected from liberal states and in those states, judges of both genders may tend to be liberal. Alternatively, the gender-specific socialization of judges may incline female judges to have more liberal attitudes than male judges. A third, but not necessarily mutually exclusive, possibility is that judicial selection process is different for males and females under consideration for the bench in ways that increase the likelihood that female judges will have liberal values. The results from studies of gender differences in the judiciary have been inconsistent in many ways. Some of the earliest analyses of the decision making of women judges on equality and women's rights issues produced mixed results. It is found that although women judges universally supported the women's position in women's issues, they were bipolar on criminal rights and economic liberties.

This investigation examines the success of various types of litigants appearing before the U.S. Courts of Appeals from 1925 to 1988. The analysis parallels the earlier studies by Songer and Sheehan (1992) and Wheeler et al. (1987) that applied the core concepts introduced by Galanter's groundbreaking analysis of why the "haves" come out ahead to study litigant success on the U.S. Courts of Appeals and state courts of last resort. The findings suggest that repeat player litigants with substantial organizational strength ("haves") are much more likely to win in the federal courts of appeals than one-shot litigants with fewer resources. The "haves" win more frequently in published decisions, even after controls are introduced for the ideological makeup of the panel. The advantage in appellate litigation enjoyed by repeat player "haves" is remarkably consistent over time. In particular, the U.S. government has compiled an impressive record in these courts by dominating opposing litigants over the 64-year period of analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Provides information on a study which determined whether the Religious Right in United States courts behave differently in office from those brought up in other religious traditions. Differences in the voting behavior of state supreme court justices in three issue areas; Religious affiliation as an indicator of a source of judicial values; Conceptual definition of evangelicals.

Studies the effectiveness of court appeals' ability to ensure that administrative agencies exercise their discretion with deference to the rule of law. Relationship between agency success and political considerations; Judges' policy preferences as a factor in judicial oversight of the administrative agencies.

Kingdon's model for the analysis of legislative voting decisions was applied to the legislatures of two states, by conducting interviews with 141 legislators in Oklahoma and 147 legislators in Kansas. The most frequently mentioned influence on decisions in both legislatures was the personal values of legislators. The influence of other factors varied significantly from results reported by Ray for northeastern states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Persons from two Oklahoma districts were interviewed to determine their ability to correctly identify the voting stands taken by their congressman. Respondents were directly asked about five specific issues. The extent of knowledge discovered exceeded expectations derived from the Miller and Stokes study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Criticizes Harold Spaeth's and Jeffrey Segal's study of the stare decisis principle's influence on Supreme Court justices' votes. Choice confronting justices in progeny; Joint effects of preferences and precedent; Segal's and Spaeth's reliance on directionality as the basis for their coding decisions.

Examines interactions between the US Supreme Court and the US Court of Appeals. Theoretical approach based on principal-agent theory; Responsiveness in the Courts of Appeals; Influence of legal subculture on lower court decision; Parallelism in the impact of case facts on Supreme Court and courts of appeals; Statistical assessment of Supreme Court reversals.

Examines the decisions of litigants in criminal cases to appeal decisions from the United States Court of Appeals to the US Supreme Court. Demonstration that litigants behave as if they rationally consider costs and benefits in their decisions to appeal; Argument that such behavior is necessary if the Supreme Court is to retain control over the federal industry.

Examines three expectations derived from a prior study on the proliferation of female judges. Analysis of votes on appeals court decisions in three issue areas; Correlation between gender and stringency with regards to obscenity, employment discrimination, criminal search and seizure.

Discusses a study conducted to determine the similarities and differences between published and nonpublished U.S. district judge decisions. Review of related literature; Analysis of the treatment of each judge decisions on appeal; Findins and conclusions.

Presents a study which examined the response of the United States Courts of Appeals to changes in the labor and antitrust policies announced by the Supreme Court between 1950 and 1977. Review of related studies; Data and methods; Findings and discussions.

Focuses on the decisions made by the United States Supreme Court to grant or deny review on petitions for certiorari. Failure of Supreme Court justices to aid scholars who seek to understand the decision-making process; Use of cue theory to explain certiorari decision-making; Policy consequences of certiorari decisions.

For over three decades, numerous studies on the impact of the United States Supreme Court have made it obvious that the legal rules and policy preferences of the Court do not automatically determine the decisions of the lower courts. An extensive literature now exists to detail the nature and extent of the impact of the Supreme Court on the courts below. The picture of judicial impact that emerges from this literature is characterized by numerous differences in the way the "impact" of the Supreme Court is conceptualized. The present study explores the differences in interpretation that might result from the application of four separate approaches to the study of judicial impact. Each of these four methods is applied in turn to evaluate the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), on the highest state appellate courts in California, New York, North Carolina, Illinois, and Oklahoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Explores the success of amici curiae appeals in state supreme court cases. Participation of interest groups on the judicial process; Assessment of correlation between amici support and litigant success; Positive nature of such correlation.

Presents findings of a study indicating that amicus curiae briefs filed in Supreme Court cases does not increase the chance of success of the litigants. Proliferation of amicus curiae briefs filed in supreme court cases; Success of interest groups in filing the briefs; Inexistence of a pattern suggesting the efficacy of the briefs in influencing court decisions.

We offer a novel theory on Supreme Court impact that makes several key contributions beyond existing accounts. We argue that policy-oriented justices are particularly attentive to the impact of their precedents within the U.S. Courts of Appeals. We provide a framework in which both Supreme Court and circuit-level influences drive U.S. Courts of Appeals responses to the Supreme Court’s precedents. Principally, we argue that the Supreme Court’s use of its summary decisions, which explicitly reference its formally argued decisions, increase circuit court utility of the High Court’s precedents. We test our predictions using new data on appeals court responses to the Supreme Court’s precedents. The empirical results support our account and shed new light on the hierarchical dynamic within the American federal judiciary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior studies hypothesize that judges time their retirements to allow a like-minded president to select their replacements. We propose a modification to this argument and theorize that during the earlier part of a district court judge’s career, it is the likelihood of elevation to an appeals court and other career-oriented concerns that affect whether the judge resigns or stays on the bench. It is during the latter stage of a judge’s career when the desire to be replaced with a like-minded judge affects the retirement decision. Our analysis reveals that judges who are not yet pension eligible are influenced by being passed over for appeals court nominations as well as financial incentives to leave for private practice. Only judges who have attained pension eligibility appear to consider their ideological compatibility with the president when deciding to call it quits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to attitudinal theorists, justices on the U.S. Supreme Court decide cases largely on political preferences that fall within one dimension of ideology. The focus of this study is to test whether a unidimensional ideological model explains the voting behavior of Canadian Supreme Court justices (1992-1997). The factor-analytic results in three areas of law, two of which have never been examined in this way in Canada, provide substantial evidence of ideological voting. Yet unlike the U.S. justices of the Rehnquist court, Canadian justices exhibit a much higher degree of ideological complexity. These findings call into question the widely held assumption of unidimensional decision making that is in vogue in the U.S. literature today, and they suggest that attitudinal theorists and comparative scholars must be cognizant that multiple dimensions of attitudinal voting might occur in high courts that are not as ideologically polarized as the U.S. Supreme Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We address an important aspect of judicial careers: the elevation of judges from the U.S. District Courts to the Courts of Appeals. We argue that the likelihood of a judge being elevated is a function of informational cues and signals regarding the nature of the judge and the judge's compatibility with presidential preferences. We also expect norms involving the intersection between geography and Senate politics to affect a judge's elevation chances. Using data on district court judges appointed between 1946 and 1995, we find that the likelihood of a judge being elevated is a function of the judge's ideological compatibility with the president, the judge's previous ABA rating, and Senate norms involving state “ownership” of appeals court seats. Blunt indicators of policy preferences trump direct signals when presidents decide whom to elevate, leaving judges little control over their career prospects and thus less incentive to slant their decisions in the direction of the president's preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presidents often move quite slowly to exercise their important power of judicial appointment. This study attempts to explain these delays by developing a strategic conception of the timing of presidential nominations to the lower federal courts. We argue that the judicial selection process may be best conceptualized by viewing presidents as strategic actors who prefer to select judges with policy preferences that are as close as possible to those of the president, given senatorial and temporal constraints. We test our argument by estimating a duration model of the length of time between vacancy and nomination for all vacancies in the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Courts of Appeals from 1977 to 1999. Our results indicate that the timing of presidential nominations is a function of both politics and institutional constraint. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we examine factors that influence appellate supervision in the lower tiers of the federal judicial hierarchy. Drawing on the insights of agency theory, we develop a framework to assess the determinants of circuit panel decisions to affirm or reverse federal district court rulings. Our analysis of U.S. Courts of Appeals' published civil rights decisions over a 29-year period (1971–1999) offers support for several hypothesized relationships. As expected, the outcome of appellate review varied with the level of agreement between the preferences of the circuit (as principal) and the policy position of the trial court (as agent). In addition, we found that circuits were more likely to affirm trial court decisions that were contrary to the preferences of the federal district court judge, suggesting that circuit judges may rely on ideological signals when evaluating appeals before them. We also hypothesized that the monitoring activities of circuits would be influenced by individual circuits' relationship with their principal, the Supreme Court. Consistent with these expectations, panels were more likely to reverse district court rulings that were incongruous with the policy predisposition of the High Court. In addition, as Supreme Court scrutiny of a circuit increased, the likelihood of a circuit panel subsequently reversing a district court also increased. Although further inquiry is necessary to clarify the interpretation of this result, the finding does suggest that district courts are more likely to engage in decision making that deviates from circuit preferences when that circuit faces more intense supervision from the Supreme Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why do we witness variation in the level of judicial attention to rights litigation across countries and over time? Traditional explanations emphasize the constitutional recognition of rights, judicial leadership, and the development in society of a sophisticated “support structure for legal mobilization,” as key covariates of these phenomena. Yet, there is a dearth of quantitative empirical analyses that evaluate these explanations comparatively and actually test their relative influence on trends of rights litigation and protection. Perhaps the most important lacuna in this regard is an assessment of the influence of institutional conditions and modifications in bringing about or facilitating the transformation of the rights scene. To contribute to closing this gap, this article empirically assesses the short and long term impacts of ideology, support structure, and institutional protection on changes in the presence of rights litigation in the dockets of the High Courts of several democracies with Common Law systems. To this purpose, we perform time-series analyses on data from the High Courts Judicial Database and the Spaeth U.S. Supreme Court Database. Our analyses indicate that once one properly models temporal effects, increasing support structures do not influence increases in rights litigation. Rather, specific institutional changes and ideological influences play a significant role in the High Courts’ attention to individual rights. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]