Integrating Alternative Approaches to the Study of Judicial Voting: Obscenity Cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

Songer, Donald R.; Haire, Susan B.

doi:10.2307/2111356

Cited by 148 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This notion is supported by former Maine AG Jim Tierney: "In criminal procedure, AGs really file with their own philosophy in mind" (Tierney, email to the author, October 25, 2004). The notion that ideology influences legal decision making-a crucial component of the attitudinal model-has been used to explain the behavior of Supreme Court justices (Pritchett 1948;Rohde and Spaeth 1976;Segal and Spaeth 1993;2002), federal appellate court judges (Songer and Haire 1992), and district attorneys (Worden 1990). Given that most AGs are elected, it is logical to believe that their decision making will also be influenced by ideology.…”

Section: The Motivation To Participate As Amicus Curiaementioning

confidence: 99%

When to Befriend the Court? Examining State Amici Curiae Participation Before the U.S. Supreme Court

Provost

2011

State Politics Policy Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past 30 years, the U.S. states have increased their participation as amici curiae significantly, in addition to winning more of their cases as direct parties. However, little attention has been paid to the factors that cause amici participation rates to vary among the states. The author examines the decision of state attorneys general (AGs) to initiate or join amicus curiae briefs in all 253 U.S. Supreme Court criminal procedure cases from 1990 through 2001. He hypothesizes that AGs are motivated largely by their own policy preferences and by their motivation to get reelected. Because amicus briefs are not particularly high-profile policy tools, reelection motivations ought to be demonstrated through responsiveness to elites in state government. The findings provide less support for this idea and more support for the idea that state AGs follow their own policy preferences through amicus participation.Research has documented the increased use of amicus curiae briefs before the U.S.

show abstract

Section: The Motivation To Participate As Amicus Curiaementioning

confidence: 99%

When to Befriend the Court? Examining State Amici Curiae Participation Before the U.S. Supreme Court

Provost

2011

State Politics Policy Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6. Issues analyzed include administrative law (Cross and Tiller 1998;Miles and Sunstein 2006), affirmative action (Cameron and Cummings 2003), asylum law (Fis chman 2007;Law 2005), the death penalty (Songer and CrewsMeyer 2000), employment discrimination (Farhang and Wawro 2004), environmental law (Revesz 1997), obscenity (Songer and Haire 1992), and sex discrimination (Baldez, Epstein, and Martin 2006;Boyd, Epstein, and Martin 2010;Fis chman 2007;Gryski, Main, and Dixon 1986;Peresie 2005). Note that some of these articles examine decision making on state supreme courts.…”

Section: Author's Notementioning

confidence: 99%

Panel Composition and Voting on the U.S. Courts of Appeals over Time

Kastellec

2010

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates two issues unexplored in studies of the relationship between panel composition and voting on three-judge panels of the Courts of Appeals: how often will panel composition influence case outcomes, and how has the relationship between panel composition and panel voting changed over time? The author shows that while long stretches of single-party control of the presidency in the first half of the twentieth century often produced a high rate of panels with three judges from the same party, frequent turnover of White House control in the past half century has helped ensure that a majority of panels are composed of at least one judge from each party. The author also presents the first systematic longitudinal analysis of panel composition and judicial behavior, showing that the relationship between the two is a relatively recent phenomenon. These findings have important implications for understanding collegial behavior on the Courts of Appeals.

show abstract

“…understanding decision making on the United States Courts of Appeals (e.g., Goldman 1966Goldman , 1975Songer and Haire 1992) and the United States District Courts Carp 1980, 1983;Ringquist and Emmert 1999; but see Rowland and Carp 1996) as well as state courts of last resort (e.g., Brace and Hall 1997;Hall and Brace 1996). There is also a small body of scholarship that supports the idea that the attitudinal model travels beyond the American context (e.g., Ostberg and Wetstein 2004).…”

Section: Designated District Court Judges and Theory Buildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Small Group Context: Designated District Court Judges in the United States Courts of Appeals

Collins

Martinek

2008

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision making in the United States Courts of Appeals occurs primarily in three-judge panels with rotating membership. A substantial proportion of court of appeals cases is decided by panels that include a judge who is not a regular court of appeals jurist but is, instead, a district court judge serving temporarily on the court of appeals bench. Taken together, these two traits mean that court of appeals decision making is often a function of small groups with temporary members. In this paper, we set out to examine whether designated district court judges behave differently than their court of appeals colleagues with whom they render decisions. And, in doing so, we suggest a profitable direction for theory building vis-à-vis judicial behavior. Our analysis of data contained in the United States Courts of Appeals Database indicates that the votes of judges on three-judge panels are influenced by the preferences of their fellow panelists and that variance in the ideological direction of votes cast is not systematically related to status as a designated district court judge, with such judges manifesting greater variance in their ideological decision making.

show abstract

Integrating Alternative Approaches to the Study of Judicial Voting: Obscenity Cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

Cited by 148 publications

References 31 publications

When to Befriend the Court? Examining State Amici Curiae Participation Before the U.S. Supreme Court

When to Befriend the Court? Examining State Amici Curiae Participation Before the U.S. Supreme Court

Panel Composition and Voting on the U.S. Courts of Appeals over Time

The Small Group Context: Designated District Court Judges in the United States Courts of Appeals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About