Brudney, Schiavoni, and Merritt address an important debate dividing lawyers and political scientists: To what extent do extradoctrinalfactors such as political party, gender, and professional experience influencejudicial decisionmaking? They analyze an area of law, decisions interpreting the National Labor RelationsAct, that has long been characterized by assertions ofJudicial bias. By including every federal court ofappeals decision applying the Act over a seven yearperiod, and controlling for both deference to the administrative agency and differences among issues arising under the Act, the authors are able to identify previously undetected influences on judicial decisionmaking. These include a strong interaction between gender and political party, the influence ofprior experience representing management clients under the Act, and associations based on race, religion, and educational background At the same time, the authors place those influences in contex4 suggesting the complex interweaving of doctrine and personal background in shapingjudicial decisions.* Professor of Law and Director, Center for Law, Policy, and Social Science, The Ohio State University College of Law. We wish to thank Lawrence Baum, Janet Box-Steffensmeier, Victor Brudney, Gregory Caldeira, Ruth Colker, Anne Doyle, Lowell Hargens, David Jacobs, Andrew Merritt, Barbara Reskin, Richard Revesz, Elliot Slotnick, Peter Swire, and participants at the University of Texas Law Faculty Workshop and the Dartmouth College Political Science Faculty Workshop for insightful comments and suggestions regarding substance and technique. Nan Aron, Sheldon Goldman, Elliot Slotnick, and Gary Zuk graciously shared data or information on the background of appellate court judges. Over a period of several years, Amy Bryan, Kathleen Lyon, and Elizabeth Pevehouse skillfully coded large amounts of data on judicial background factors and provided exceptional research assistance. No. 74-198,49 Stat. 449 (1935). Disagreement about how judicial attitudes affect labor law decisionmaking by federal appellate courts is at the core of a broader debate that tends to pit the legal profession against political scientists. Judges and many legal scholars recognize that appellate courts have considerable discretion in deciding particular cases, but they emphasize the importance of language, precedent, and logical reasoning in cabining the exercise of such discretion. 7 By contrast, many political scientists accept the formal limits imposed by law and judicial custom, but they emphasize the role of judges' policy preferences within these relatively soft constraints. 8 In recent years,Administrative Law, 1990 DUKE L.L 984, 1013-22 (reporting that in 1984-1985, the National Labor Relations Board had a lower affirmance rate in the courts of appeals (75%) than other agencies that also act almost exclusively through adjudication and have a similarly high volume of cases, i.e. the Immigration and Naturalization Service (83% of orders fully affirmed) and the Merit Systems Protection Bo...
