Ideological Influences on Decision Making in the Federal Judicial Hierarchy: An Empirical Assessment

Zorn, Christopher; Bowie, Jennifer Barnes

doi:10.1017/s0022381610000630

Cited by 55 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many studies of district judge decision making find that the effect of a judge's party (as defined by the party of the appointing president) is smaller in the district courts than in appellate courts (e.g., Epstein, Landes, and Posner 2013;Zorn and Bowie 2010). Many studies of district judge decision making find that the effect of a judge's party (as defined by the party of the appointing president) is smaller in the district courts than in appellate courts (e.g., Epstein, Landes, and Posner 2013;Zorn and Bowie 2010).…”

Section: De Facto Law In Trial Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A subtle, but important, empirical implication emerges from this discussion. Many studies of district judge decision making find that the effect of a judge's party (as defined by the party of the appointing president) is smaller in the district courts than in appellate courts (e.g., Epstein, Landes, and Posner 2013;Zorn and Bowie 2010). This result suggests that a set of judges who are biased relative to their reviewing appellate court (e.g., Democratic district judges in a Republican circuit) will have heterogeneous effects on de facto law: Some will produce outcomes that are more pro-plaintiff than de jure law; some will produce outcomes that are more prodefendant than de jure law.…”

Section: De Facto Law In Trial Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Getting Their Way: Bias and Deference to Trial Courts

Hübert

2019

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How much do trial judges influence the law in the United States? I analyze a model of adjudication by a trial judge who engages in fact finding before deciding a case, but whose decision may be reversed. The model makes three broad points. First, it provides an informational rationale for ex post deference to biased trial judges that does not require an ex ante commitment by an appellate court to a standard of review. Second, it shows how procedural discretion can bring biased trial judges' rulings closer to appellate doctrine despite enabling trial judges to "get their way" more often. Third, de facto law as represented by trial judges' case-by-case adjudication will differ substantially from de jure law. As long as there are not too many extremist trial judges, de facto law will reflect the predispositions of trial judges, not legal doctrine.

show abstract

Section: De Facto Law In Trial Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: De Facto Law In Trial Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting Their Way: Bias and Deference to Trial Courts

Hübert

2019

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies of trial court judges are less common, and notably, some show a more mixed portrait of political influence at the trial court (Blume & Eisenberg 1999). Inasmuch as more than 80% of cases are ultimately decided by the trial court alone (Zorn & Bowie 2010), this result gives some comfort that for most litigants their cases will not be decided largely by the politics of the presiding judge.…”

Section: Political Ideologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges

Rachlinski

Wistrich

2017

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

 AbstractDo judges make decisions that are truly impartial? A wide range of experimental and field studies reveal that several extra-legal factors influence judicial decision making. Demographic characteristics of judges and litigants affect judges' decisions. Judges also rely heavily on intuitive reasoning in deciding cases, making them vulnerable to the use of mental shortcuts that can lead to mistakes. Furthermore, judges sometimes rely on facts outside the record and rule more favorably towards litigants who are more sympathetic or with whom they share demographic characteristics. On the whole, judges are excellent decision makers, and sometimes resist common errors of judgment that influence ordinary adults. The weight of the evidence, however, suggests that judges are vulnerable to systematic deviations from the ideal of judicial impartiality.

show abstract

“…21 We also account for other factors that influence judicial voting. The most important competing explanation for liberal voting in sex discrimination is a judge's ideological predisposition, which has been shown to have consistent effects on judicial voting in the Courts of Appeals (Sunstein et al 2006;Zorn and Bowie 2010). We utilize the Judicial Common Space scores (Epstein et al 2007;18 For many of the older men in the dataset (and a few women), their law degree was actually a L.L.B., not a J.D., as was fairly common prior to the 1960s.…”

Section: Data and Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trailblazers and Those That Followed: Personal Experiences, Gender, and Judicial Empathy

Moyer¹,

Haire²

2015

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates one causal mechanism that may explain why female judges on the federal appellate courts are more likely than men to side with plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases. To test whether personal experiences with inequality are related to empathetic responses to the claims of female plaintiffs, we focus on the first wave of female judges, who attended law school during a time of severe gender inequality. We find that female judges are more likely than their male colleagues to support plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases, but that this difference is seen only in judges who graduated law school between 1954 and 1975 and disappears when more recent law school cohorts of men and women judges are compared. These results suggest that the effect of gender as a trait is tied to the role of formative experiences with discrimination.You know, the young women today can't possibly . . . understand the pressures of being first . . . Nothing was good enough, and it took me an awful lot of years to realize how good many of the women really were in relationship to the men's talents. I mean, when I think of it, men that were hundreds of places below us in class were getting great jobs and there were no jobs for us.-Judge Ilana Rovner 1

show abstract

Ideological Influences on Decision Making in the Federal Judicial Hierarchy: An Empirical Assessment

Cited by 55 publications

References 23 publications

Getting Their Way: Bias and Deference to Trial Courts

Getting Their Way: Bias and Deference to Trial Courts

Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges

Trailblazers and Those That Followed: Personal Experiences, Gender, and Judicial Empathy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About