On the Relationship between Public Opinion and Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

Abstract

The potentially undemocratic nature of the federal courts has longed flamed the fires of the debate regarding the proper role of the judiciary in American politics. Extant scholarship concerning the influence of public opinion on judicial decision making focuses almost myopically on the U.S. Supreme Court, neglecting other significant judicial actors. We explore the extent to which the federal courts act as countermajoritarian institutions by investigating the impact of public preferences on decision making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Using data from 1961-2002, we examine whether the courts of appeals are influenced by public mood, both indirectly through the federal judicial selection process and directly via responsiveness to changes in circuit and national mood. Our results indicate that public opinion affects courts of appeals decision making indirectly by way of judicial replacements, but we fail to uncover evidence that courts of appeals judges respond directly to changes in public opinion at either the regional or national levels. We conclude that, absent membership turnover, the courts of appeals are not responsive to the will of the public.

Public Mood, Previous Electoral Experience, and Responsiveness Among Federal Circuit Court Judges

“…The study is not directly similar to our approach, however, because it examines only the role of national public opinion on circuit court judges. Calvin, Collins, and Esbaugh-Soha (2011) examine whether circuit mood influences circuit judges but find no effect. Still, that study was conducted before recent advances in measurement of state public opinion; it was therefore unable to take advantage of these more compelling mood measures.…”

“…Federal circuit judges routinely-and mandatorily-decide cases involving appeals to criminal convictions. Existing research shows they typically affirm those decisions, issuing (conservative) decisions to uphold criminal convictions (e.g., Calvin et al, 2011). We account for this factor, coding criminal case as 1 if the case involves a criminal justice issue; 0 otherwise.…”

Громче Скажешь — Раньше Выйдешь? Этические И Тактические Основания Использования Публичности Как Тактики Судебной Защиты В России

“…В этом контексте важный для нас блок научной литературы посвящен вопросу о том, как журналисты принимают решение о том, какие сюжеты освещать, а какие нет [Calvin, Collins, Eshbaugh Soha, 2011;Collins, Cooper 2015;Strother, 2017]. Ключевой категорией выступает «общественная значимость», которая, однако, разбивается на множество дополнительных подкатегорий, включая вопросы о последствиях (того или иного прецедента), эмоциональной окрашенности про блемы, справедливости и т. д. Для нашего исследования важно, что общественная значимость заложена в обстоятельствах конкретного дела, которые накладывают очень важное ограничение на использование тактики публичной защиты.…”

“…Общественное внимание к делу («общественный резонанс») иногда влияет на решения судов, чему посвящен третий блок литературы [Boyd, Nelson, 2017;Calvin, Collins, Eshbaugh Soha, 2011;Glick, Pruet, 1985;Haggerty, Haggerty, 2003;Nelson, 2014]. Например, в работе [Bruschke, Loges, 1999] показано, что для пуб личных дел вероятность оправдательного приговора выше, но в случае вынесения обвинения приговор оказывается строже.…”