Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:41:25.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Law, Economics and Politics

The Strategic Analysis of Judicial Behavior

A Comparative Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2021

Lee Epstein  and
Keren Weinshall
Lee Epstein
Affiliation:
Washington University, St Louis
Keren Weinshall
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Summary

The past decade has witnessed a worldwide explosion of work aimed at illuminating judicial-behavior: the choices judges make and the consequences of their choices. We focus on strategic accounts of judicial-behavior. As in other approaches to judging, preferences and institutions play a central role but strategic accounts are unique in one important respect: They draw attention to the interdependent - i.e., the strategic - nature of judicial decisions. On strategic accounts, judges do not make decisions in a vacuum, but rather attend to the preferences and likely actions of other actors, including their colleagues, superiors, politicians, and the public. We survey the major methodological approaches for conducting strategic analysis and consider how scholars have used them to provide insight into the effect of internal and external actors on the judges' choices. As far as these studies have traveled in illuminating judicial-behavior, many opportunities for forward movement remain. We flag four in the conclusion.
Get access

Keywords

hierarchy of justicejudicial preferenceslegal institutionsrational choiceseparation of powers
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Law, Economics and Politics
Online ISBN: 9781009049030
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 17 June 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alarie, Benjamin and Green, Andrew J.. 2017. Commitment and Cooperation on High Courts. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderlini, Luca, Felli, Leonardo, and Riboni, Alessandro. 2020. “Legal Efficiency and Consistency.” European Economic Review 121: Article 103323.Google Scholar
Arguelhes, , Werneck, Diego and Hartmann, Ivar A.. 2017. “Timing Control without Docket Control: How Individual Justices Shape the Brazilian Supreme Court’s Agenda.” Journal of Law and Courts 5(1): 105–40.Google Scholar
Barber, Michael and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2019. “Does Party Trump Ideology? Disentangling Party and Ideology in America.” American Political Science Review 13(1): 38–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Larry. 1997. The Puzzle of Judicial Behavior. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Baum, Larry. 2006. Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2017. Ideology in the Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Becker, Theodore L. 1970. Comparative Judicial Politics: The Political Functioning of Courts. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Beim, Deborah and Kastellec, Jonathan P.. 2014. “The Interplay of Ideological Diversity, Dissents, and Discretionary Review in the Judicial Hierarchy: Evidence from Death Penalty Cases.” Journal of Politics 76(4): 1074–88.Google Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, Conwy, Drew, Lauderdale, Benjamin E., and Laver, Michael. 2016. “Crowd-Sourced Text Analysis: Reproducible and Agile Production of Political Data.” American Political Science Review 110(2): 278–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentsen, Henrik Litleré. 2019. “Dissent, Legitimacy, and Public Support for Court Decisions: Evidence from a Survey-Based Experiment.” Law & Society Review 53(2): 588–610.Google Scholar
Berdejó, Carlos and Yuchtman, Noam M.. 2013. “Crime, Punishment, and Politics: An Analysis of Political Cycles in Criminal Sentencing.” Review of Economics and Statistics 95(3): 741–56.Google Scholar
Bingham, Christopher B. and Eisenhardt, Kathleen M.. 2011. “Rational Heuristics: The ‘Simple Rules’ that Strategists Learn from Process Experience.” Strategic Management Journal 32(13): 1437–64.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C. and Owens, Ryan J.. 2009. “Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court: The Collision of Policy and Jurisprudence.” Journal of Politics 71(3): 1062–75.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C. and Owens, Ryan J.. 2012. “Consider the Source (and the Message): Supreme Court Justices and Strategic Audits of Lower Court Decisions.” Political Research Quarterly 65(2): 385–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C. and Owens, Ryan J.. 2016. “Courting the President: How Circuit Court Judges Alter Their Behavior for Promotion to the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 60(1): 30–43.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C., Owens, Ryan J., Wedeking, Justin, and Wohlfarth, Patrick C.. 2016. U.S. Supreme Court Opinions and their Audiences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C., Sorenson, Maron W., and Johnson, Timothy R.. 2013. “Towards an Actor- Based Measure of Supreme Court Case Salience: Information-Seeking and Engagement During Oral Arguments.” Political Research Quarterly 66(4): 803–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanes i Vidal, Jordi and Clare, Leaver. 2013. “Social Interactions and the Content of Legal Opinions.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 29(1): 78–114.Google Scholar
Blanes i Vidal, Jordi and Clare, Leaver. 2016. “Bias in Open Peer-Review: Evidence from the English Superior Courts.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 31(3): 431–71.Google Scholar
Bonica, Adam and Sen, Maya. 2021. “Estimating Judicial Ideology.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 35(1): 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Christina L. 2015a. “The Hierarchical Influence of Courts of Appeals on District Courts.” Journal of Legal Studies 44(1): 113.Google Scholar
Boyd, Christina L. 2015b. “Opinion Writing in the Federal District Courts.” Justice System Journal 36(3): 254–73.Google Scholar
Boyd, Christina L., Epstein, Lee, and Martin, Andrew D.. 2010. “Untangling the Causal Effect of Sex on Judging.” American Journal of Political Science 54(2): 389–411.Google Scholar
Boyd, Christina L. and Sievert, Jacqueline. 2013. “Unaccountable Justice? The Decision Making of Magistrate Judges in the Federal District Courts.” Justice System Journal 34(3): 249–73.Google Scholar
Brodie, Ian. 2002. Friends of the Court: The Privileging of Interest Group Litigants in Canada. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Brouard, Sylvain and Christoph, Hönnige. 2017. “Constitutional Courts as Veto Players: Lessons from the United States, France and Germany.” European Journal of Political Research 56(3): 529–52.Google Scholar
Bugaric, Bojan and Ginsburg, Tom. 2016. “The Assault on Postcommunist Courts.” Journal of Democracy 27(3): 69–82.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., Wright, John R., and Zorn, Christopher J. W.. 1999. “Sophisticated Voting and Gate-Keeping in the Supreme Court.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 15(3): 549–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Charles M. 1993. “Decision-Making and Positive Political Theory (Or, Using Game Theory to Study Judicial Politics).” Paper presented at the Wallis Institute of Political Economy, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
Cameron, Charles M., Segal, Jeffrey A., and Songer, Donald R.. 2000. “Strategic Auditing in a Political Hierarchy: An Informational Model of the Supreme Courts Certiorari Decisions.” American Political Science Review 94(1): 101–16.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Clark, Tom S., and Kelly, Jason P.. 2014. “Judicial Selection and Death Penalty Decisions.” American Political Science Review 108(1): 23–9.Google Scholar
Cardozo, Benjamin. 1921. The Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, David and Montgomery, Jacob. 2017. “A Pairwise Comparison Framework for Fast, Flexible, and Reliable Human Coding of Political Texts.” American Political Science Review 111(4): 835–43.Google Scholar
Carroll, Royce and Tiede, Lydia. 2012. “Ideological Voting on Chile’s Constitutional Tribunal: Dissent Coalitions in the Adjudication of Rights.” Journal of Human Rights 11(1): 85–105.Google Scholar
Carrubba, Clifford J., Gabel, Matthew J., and Hankla, Charles. 2008. “Judicial Behavior under Political Constraints: Evidence from the European Court of Justice.” American Political Science Review 102(4): 435–52.Google Scholar
Carrubba, Clifford J., Gabel, Matthew, and Hankla, Charles. 2012. “Understanding the Role of the European Court of Justice in European Integration.” American Political Science Review 106(1): 214–23.Google Scholar
Casillas, Christopher J., Enns, Peter K., and Wohlfarth, Patrick C.. 2011. “How Public Opinion Constrains the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 55(1): 74–88.Google Scholar
Chowdhury, Rishad Ahmed. 2016. “Missing the Wood for the Trees: A Critical Exploration of the Supreme Court of India’s Chronic Struggle with its Docket.” University of Chicago, JSD dissertation.Google Scholar
Clark, Tom S. 2011. The Limits of Judicial Independence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Tom S., Engst, Benjamin G., and Staton, Jeffrey K.. 2018. “Estimating the Effect of Leisure on Judicial Performance.” Journal of Legal Studies 47(2): 349–90.Google Scholar
Clinton, Robert Lowry. 1994. “Game Theory, Legal History, and the Origins of Judicial Review.” American Journal of Political Science 38(2): 285–302.Google Scholar
Collins, Paul M. 2008. Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooter, Robert D. 1983. “The Objectives of Private and Public Judges.” Public Choice 41(1): 107–32.Google Scholar
Corley, Pamela C. and Wedeking, Justin. 2014. “The (Dis)Advantage of Certainty: The Importance of Certainty in Language.” Law & Society Review 48(1): 35–62.Google Scholar
Coroado, Susana, Garoupa, Nuno, and Magalhães, Pedro C.. 2017. “Judicial Behavior under Austerity: An Empirical Analysis of Behavioral Changes in the Portuguese Constitutional Court, 2002–2016.” Journal of Law and Courts 5(2): 289–311.Google Scholar
Cox, Adam B. and Miles, Thomas J.. 2008. “Judging the Voting Rights Act.” Columbia Law Review 108(1): 1–54.Google Scholar
Cross, Frank B. and Tiller, Emerson H.. 1998. “Judicial Partisanship and Obedience to Legal Doctrine: Whistleblowing on the Federal Courts of Appeals.” Yale Law Journal 107(7): 2155–75.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1957. “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policymaker.” Journal of Public Law 6(Fall): 279–95.Google Scholar
Dalla, Lucia Pellegrina, Escresa, Laarni, and Garoupa, Nuno. 2014. “Measuring Judicial Ideal Points in New Democracies: The Case of the Philippines.” Asian Journal of Law and Society 125(1): 125–64.Google Scholar
Das, T. K. and Teng, Bing-Sheng. 1999. “Cognitive Biases and Strategic Decision Processes: An Integrative Perspective.” Journal of Management Studies 36(6): 757–78.Google Scholar
de Figueiredo, Miguel F. P., Lahav, Alexandra D., and Siegelman, Peter. 2019. “The Six-Month List and the Unintended Consequences of Judicial Accountability.” Cornell Law Review 105: 363–456.Google Scholar
de Mendonça Lopes, Felipe. 2019. “Dissent Aversion and Sequential Voting in the Brazilian Supreme Court.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 16(4): 933–54.Google Scholar
Delaney, Erin F. 2016. “Analyzing Avoidance: Judicial Strategy in Comparative Perspective.” Duke Law Journal 66(1): 1–68.Google Scholar
Dietrich, Bryce J., Enos, Ryan D., and Sen, Maya. 2019. “Emotional Arousal Predicts Voting on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Analysis 27(2): 237–43.Google Scholar
Dixon, Rosalind and Issacharoff, Samuel. 2016. “Living to Fight Another Day: Judicial Deferral in Defense of Democracy.” Wisconsin Law Review 2016(4): 683–732.Google Scholar
Dothan, Shai. 2015. Reputation and Judicial Tactics: A Theory of National and International Courts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dothan, Shai. 2018. “The Motivations of Individual Judges and How They Act as a Group.” German Law Journal 19(7): 2165–88.Google Scholar
Drahozal, Christopher R. 1998. “Judicial Incentives and the Appeals Process.” SMU Law Review 51(3): 469–503.Google Scholar
Dyevre, Arthur. 2010. “Unifying the Field of Comparative Judicial Politics: Towards a General Theory of Judicial Behavior.” European Political Science Review 2(2): 297–327.Google Scholar
Dyevre, Arthur. 2013. “Filtered Constitutional Review and the Reconfiguration of Judicial Politics.” American Journal of Comparative Law 61(4): 729–55.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Theodore, Fisher, Talia, and Rosen-Zvi, Issi. 2012. “Does the Judge Matter? Exploiting Random Assignment on a Court of Last Resort to Assess Judge and Case Selection Effects.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 9(2): 246–90.Google Scholar
Engel, Christoph and Zhurakhovska, Lilia. 2017. “You are in Charge: Experimentally Testing the Motivating Power of Holding a Judicial Office.” Journal of Legal Studies 46(1): 1–50.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Jacobi, Tonja. 2010. “The Strategic Analysis of Judicial Decisions.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 6: 341–58.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Knight, Jack. 1998a. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Knight, Jack. 1998b. Mapping Out the Strategic Terrain: The Informational Role of Amici Curiae. In Supreme Court Decision-Making, eds. Clayton, Cornell and Gillman, Howard. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Knight, Jack. 2000. “Toward a Strategic Revolution in Judicial Politics: A Look Back, A Look Ahead.” Political Research Quarterly 53(3): 625–61.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Knight, Jack. 2013. “Reconsidering Judicial Preferences.” Annual Review of Political Science 16: 11–31.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Knight, Jack. 2018. Efficacious Judging on Apex Courts. In Comparative Judicial Review, eds. Delaney, Erin F. and Dixon, Rosalind. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Knight, Jack, and Martin, Andrew. 2001. “The Supreme Court as a Strategic National Policy Maker.” Emory Law Journal 50(2): 583–611.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Knight, Jack, and Shvetsova, Olga. 2002. “The Role of Constitutional Courts in the Establishment and Maintenance of Democratic Systems of Government.” Law and Society Review 35(1): 117–64.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A.. 2010. “Inferring the Winning Party in the Supreme Court from the Pattern of Questioning at Oral Argument.” Journal of Legal Studies 39(2): 433–67.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A.. 2011. “Why (and When) Judges Dissent.” Journal of Legal Analysis 3(1): 101–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A.. 2013. The Behavior of Federal Judges. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A.. 2015. “The Best for Last: The Timing of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.” Duke Law Journal 64(6): 991–1022.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Martin, Andrew D.. 2010. “Does Public Opinion Influence the Supreme Court? Possibly Yes (But We’re Not Sure Why).” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 13(2): 263–82.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Martin, Andrew D., Quinn, Kevin, and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 2012. Ideology and the Study of Judicial Behavior. In Ideology and the Law, ed. Hanson, Jon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Parker, Christopher M., and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 2018. “Do Justices Defend the Speech They Hate? An Analysis of In-Group Bias on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Law and Courts 6(2): 237–61.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Posner, Eric. 2016. “Supreme Court Justices’ Loyalty to the President.” Journal of Legal Studies 45(2): 401–36.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Šadl, Urkša, and Weinshall, Keren. 2021. “The Role of Comparative Law in the Analysis of Judicial Behavior.” American Journal of Comparative Law, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Eren, Ozkan and Mocan, Naci. 2018. “Emotional Judges and Unlucky Juveniles.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 10(3): 171–205.Google Scholar
Eskridge, William N., Jr., 1991a. “Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions.” Yale Law Journal 101(2): 331–417.Google Scholar
Eskridge, William N., Jr., 1991b. “Reneging on History?: Playing the Court/Congress/President Civil Rights Game.” California Law Review 79(3): 613–84.Google Scholar
Farhang, Sean, Kastellec, Jonathan P., and Wawro, Greg. 2015. “The Politics of Opinion Assignment and Authorship on the U.S. Court of Appeals: Evidence from Sexual Harassment Cases.” Journal of Legal Studies 44: S59–S85.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John and Pasquino, Pasquale. 2003. Rule of Law and Rule of Democracy. In Democracy and the Rule of Law, eds. Maravall, José María and Przeworski, Adam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John, Rosenbluth, Francis, and Shipan, Charles. 2007. Comparative Judicial Politics. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, eds. Boix, Carles and Stokes, Susan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John and Weingast, Barry. 1992. “A Positive Theory of Statutory Interpretation.” International Review of Law and Economics 12 (June): 263–79.Google Scholar
Fettig, Shawn C. and Benesh, Sara C.. 2016. Be Careful With My Court: Legitimacy, Public Opinion, and the Chief Justices. In The Chief Justice: Appointment and Influence, eds. Ward, Artemus and Danelski, David. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Flemming, Roy B. 2004. Tournament of Appeals: Granting Judicial Review in Canada. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Fontana, David. 2011. Docket Control and the Success of Constitutional Courts. In Comparative Constitutional Law, eds. Ginsburg, Tom and Dixon, Rosalind. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Frankenreiter, Jens. 2017. “The Politics of Citations at the ECJ – Policy Preferences of E.U. Member State Governments and the Citation Behavior of Judges at the European Court of Justice.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 14(4): 813–57.Google Scholar
Friedman, Barry. 2001. “Taking Law Seriously.” Perspectives on Politics 4(2): 261–71.Google Scholar
Friedman, Barry. 2009. The Will of the People. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.Google Scholar
Frishman, Olga. 2017. “Court-Audience Relationships in the 21st Century.” Mississippi Law Journal 86(2): 213–72.Google Scholar
Garoupa, Nuno and Ginsburg, Tom. 2015. Judicial Reputation: A Comparative Theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garoupa, Nuno, Gomez-Pomar, Fernando, and Grembi, Veronica. 2013. “Judging under Political Pressure: An Empirical Analysis of Constitutional Review Voting in the Spanish Constitutional Court.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 29(3): 513–34.Google Scholar
Gely, Rafael and Spiller, Pablo T.. 1990. “A Rational Choice Theory of Supreme Court Decision Making with Applications to the State Farm and Grove City Cases.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6(2): 263–300.Google Scholar
George, Tracey E. and Epstein, Lee. 1992. “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 86(2): 323–37.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. and Caldeira, Gregory A.. 2011. “Has Legal Realism Damaged the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?” Law & Society Review 45(1): 195–219.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A., and Baird, Vanessa A.. 1998. “On the Legitimacy of High Courts.” American Political Science Review 92(2): 343–58.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2016. Towards a Rational Theory of Heuristics. In Minds, Models and Milieu, eds. Frantz, Roger and Marsh, Leslie. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Giles, Micheal W., Blackstone, Bethany, and Vining, Richard L.. 2008. “The Supreme Court in American Democracy: Unraveling the Linkages Between Public Opinion and Judicial Decision Making.” Journal of Politics 70(2): 293–306.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 2001. The Votes that Counted. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom. 2013. The Politics of Courts in Democratization. In Consequential Courts, eds. Kapiszewski, Diana, Silverstein, Gordon, and Kagan, Robert A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Givati, Yehonatan and Rosenberg, Israel. 2020. “How Would Judges Compose Judicial Panels? Theory and Evidence from the Supreme Court of Israel.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 17(2): 317–41.Google Scholar
Grendstad, Gunnar, Shaffer, William R., and Waltenburg, Eric. 2015. Policy Making in an Independent Judiciary: The Norwegian Supreme Court. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Grimmer, Justin and King, Gary. 2011. “General Purpose Computer-Assisted Clustering and Conceptualization.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(7): 2643–50.Google Scholar
Grimmer, Justin and Stewart, Brandon M.. 2013. “Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts.” Political Analysis 21(3): 267–97.Google Scholar
Guerriero, Carmine. 2016. “Endogenous Legal Traditions and Economic Outcomes.” Journal of Comparative Economics 44(2): 416–33.Google Scholar
Guthrie, Chris, Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., and Wistrich, Andrew J.. 2001 . “Inside the Judicial Mind.” Cornell Law Review 86(4): 777–830.Google Scholar
Haire, Susan B. and Moyer, Laura P.. 2015. Diversity Matters: Judicial Policymaking on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Matthew E. K. 2014. “The Semiconstrained Court: Public Opinion, The Separation of Powers, and the US Supreme Court’s Fear of Nonimplementation.” American Journal of Political Science 58(2): 352–66.Google Scholar
Hamann, Hanjo. 2019. “The German Federal Courts Dataset 1950–2019: From Paper Archives to Linked Open Data.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 16(3): 671–88.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Alexander. 1788. “Federalist Paper #78,” available at https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp.Google Scholar
Hanretty, Chris. 2012. “Dissent in Iberia: The Ideal Points of Justices on the Spanish and Portuguese Constitutional Tribunals.” European Journal of Political Research 51(5): 671–92.Google Scholar
Hanretty, Chris. 2020. A Court of Specialists: Judicial Behaviour in the UK Supreme Court. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hanssen, , Andrew, F.. 2004. “Is There a Politically Optimal Level of Judicial Independence?” American Economic Review 94(3): 712–29.Google Scholar
Harvey, Anna and Friedman, Barry. 2006. “Pulling Punches: Congressional Constraints on the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Rulings, 1987–2000.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 31(4): 533–62.Google Scholar
Hausegger, Lori and Haynie, Stacia. 2003. “Judicial Decisionmaking and the Use of Panels in the Canadian Supreme Court and the South African Appellate Division.” Law & Society Review 37(3): 635–57.Google Scholar
Haynie, Stacia. 2002. “Judicial Decision-Making and the Use of Panels in the South African Appellate Division.” Politikon: South African Journal of Political Studies 29(2): 147–61.Google Scholar
Helmke, Gretchen. 2002. “The Logic of Strategic Defection: Court-Executive Relations in Argentina Under Dictatorship and Democracy.” American Political Science Review 96(2): 291–303.Google Scholar
Helmke, Gretchen. 2005. Courts Under Constraints: Judges, Generals, and Presidents in Argentina. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Helmke, Gretchen. 2017. Institutions on the Edge: The Origins and Consequences of Inter-Branch Crises in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Helmke, Gretchen and Sanders, Mitchell S.. 2006. “Modeling Motivations: A Method for Inferring Judicial Goals from Behavior.” Journal of Politics 68(4): 867–78.Google Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., Lindquist, Stefanie A., and Martinek, Wendy L.. 2006. Judging on a Collegial Court: Influences on Federal Appellate Decision Making. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Hinkle, Rachael K., Martin, Andrew D., Shaub, Jonathan D., and Tiller, Emerson H.. 2012. “A Positive Theory and Empirical Analysis of Strategic Word Choice in District Court Opinions.” Journal of Legal Analysis 4(2): 407–44.Google Scholar
Hofnung, Menachem and Margel, Keren Weinshall. 2010. “Judicial Setbacks, Material Gains: Terror Litigation at the Israeli High Court of Justice.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 7(4): 664–92.Google Scholar
Hönnige, Christoph. 2009. “The Electoral Connection: How the Pivotal Judge Affects Oppositional Success at European Constitutional Courts.” West European Politics 32(5): 963–84.Google Scholar
Huber, Gregory A. and Gordon, Sanford C.. 2004. “Accountability and Coercion: Is Justice Blind when It Runs for Office?” American Journal of Political Science 48(2): 247–63.Google Scholar
Iaryczower, Matias, Shi, Xiaoxia, and Shum, Matthew. 2018. “Can Words Get in the Way: The Effect of Deliberation in Collective Decision Making.” Journal of Political Economy 126(2): 688–734.Google Scholar
Iaryczower, Matias and Shum, Matthew. 2012. “Money in Judicial Politics: Individual Contributions and Collective Decisions,” available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=1998895.Google Scholar
Iaryczower, Matias, Spiller, Pablo T., and Tommasi, Mariano. 2002. “Judicial Independence in Unstable Environments, Argentina 1935–1998.” American Journal of Political Science 46(4): 699–715.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy. 2004. Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the United States Supreme Court. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., Spriggs, James F., and Wahlbeck, Paul J.. 2005. “Passing and Strategic Voting on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Law & Society Review 39(2): 349–77.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.Google Scholar
Kantorowicz, Jaroslaw and Garoupa, Nuno. 2016. “An Empirical Analysis of Constitutional Review Voting in the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, 2003–2014.” Constitutional Political Economy 27: 66–92.Google Scholar
Kastellec, Jonathan P. 2007. “Panel Composition and Judicial Compliance on the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 23(2): 421–41.Google Scholar
Kastellec, Jonathan P. 2011. “Hierarchical and Collegial Politics on the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Journal of Politics 73(2): 345–61.Google Scholar
Kastellec, Jonathan P. 2013. “Racial Diversity and Judicial Influence on Appellate Courts.” American Journal of Political Science 57(1): 167–83.Google Scholar
Katz, Daniel M. 2006. “Institutional Rules, Strategic Behavior, and the Legacy of Chief Justice William Rehnquist: Setting the Record Straight on Dickerson v. U.S.” Journal of Law and Politics 22(4): 303–39.Google Scholar
Klein, David E. and Hume, Robert J.. 2003. “Fear of Reversal as an Explanation of Lower Court Compliance.” Law & Society Review 37(3): 579–606.Google Scholar
Klug, Heinz. 2013. Constitutional Authority and Judicial Pragmatism: Politics and Law in the Evolution of South Africa’s Constitutional Court. In Consequential Courts, eds. Kapiszewski, Diana, Silverstein, Gordon, and Kagan, Robert A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knight, Jack. 1992. Institutions and Social Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knight, Jack and Epstein, Lee. 1996a. “The Norm of Stare Decisis.” American Journal of Political Science 40(4): 1018–35.Google Scholar
Knight, Jack and Epstein, Lee. 1996b. “On the Struggle for Judicial Supremacy.” Law and Society Review 30(1): 87–130.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Jay N. 2016. “The Politics of Judicial Procedures: The Role of Public Oral Hearings in the German Constitutional Court.” American Journal of Political Science 60(4): 990–1005.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 2007. “Supreme Court Appointments as a Move-the-Median Game.” American Journal of Political Science 51(2): 231–40.Google Scholar
Krewson, Chris, Lassen, David, and Owens, Ryan J.. 2018. “Twitter and the Supreme Court: An Examination of Congressional Tweets about the Supreme Court.” Justice System Journal 39(4): 322–30.Google Scholar
Larsson, Olof and Naurin, Daniel. 2016. “Judicial Independence and Political Uncertainty: How the Risk of Override Affects the Court of Justice of the EU.” International Organization 70(2): 377–408.Google Scholar
Larsson, Olof, Naurin, Daniel, Derlén, Mattias, and Lindholm, Johan. 2017. “Speaking Law to Power: The Strategic Use of Precedent of the Court of Justice of the European Union.” Comparative Political Studies 50(7): 879–907.Google Scholar
Lau, Holning. 2016. “Comparative Perspectives on Strategic Remedial Delays.” Tulane Law Review 91(2): 259–323.Google Scholar
Lavie, Shay. 2017. “Discretionary Review and Undesired Cases.” European Journal of Law and Economics 44(2): 265–85.Google Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R. and Cameron, Charles M.. 2007. “Bargaining and Opinion Assignment on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 23(2): 276–302.Google Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R. and Rader, Kelly. 2015. “Bargaining Power on the Supreme Court: Evidence from Opinion Assignment and Vote Switching.” Journal of Politics 77(3): 635–47.Google Scholar
Lewis, Craig and Young, Steven. 2019. “Fad or Future? Automated Analysis of Financial Text and Its Implications for Corporate Reporting.” Accounting and Business Research 49(5): 587–615.Google Scholar
Li, Siyu. 2020. “A Separation-of-Powers Model of U.S. Chief Justice Opinion Assignment.” Justice System Journal 41(1): 3–21.Google Scholar
Lindquist, Stefanie A., Haire, Susan B., and Songer, Donald R.. 2007. “Supreme Court Auditing of the U.S. Courts of Appeals: An Organizational Perspective.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17(4): 607–24.Google Scholar
Magalhães, Pedro C. and Garoupa, Nuno. 2020. “Judicial Performance and Trust in Legal Systems: Findings from a Decade of Surveys in over 20 European Countries.” Social Science Quarterly 101(5): 1743–60.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, Spriggs, James F., and Wahlbeck, Paul J.. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Masood, Ali S. and Lineberger, Monica E.. 2020. “United Kingdom, United Courts? Hierarchical Interactions and Attention to Precedent in the British Judiciary.” Political Research Quarterly 73(3): 714–26.Google Scholar
Mate, Manoj. 2013. Public Interest Litigation and the Transformation of the Supreme Court of India. In Consequential Courts, eds. Kapiszewski, Diana, Silverstein, Gordon, and Kagan, Robert A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. and Stimson, James A.. 2004. “The Least Dangerous Branch Revisited: New Evidence on Supreme Court Responsiveness to Public Preferences.” Journal of Politics 66(4): 1018–35.Google Scholar
McNollgast, . 1995. “Politics and Courts: A Positive Theory of Judicial Doctrine and the Rule of Law.” Southern California Law Review 68(6): 1631–83.Google Scholar
Melcarne, Alessandro. 2017. “Careerism and Judicial Behavior.” European Journal of Law and Economics 44(2): 241–64.Google Scholar
Miceli, Thomas and Cosgel, Metin. 1994. “Reputation and Judicial Decision-Making.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 23(1): 31–51.Google Scholar
Muro, Sergio and Chehtman, Alejandro. 2020. “Law or Strategic Calculus? Abstention in the Argentine Supreme Court.” International Review of Law and Economics 62: Article 105889.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Narayan, , Kumar, Paresh and Smyth, Russell. 2007. “What Explains Dissent on the High Court of Australia? An Empirical Assessment Using a Cointegration and Error Correction Approach.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4(2): 401–25.Google Scholar
North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Karen and Lee, Epstein. 1983. “Court Rules and Workload: A Case Study of Rules Governing Amicus Curiae Participation.” Justice System Journal 8(1): 35–45.Google Scholar
Okun, Eli. 2020. “Trump Calls for Sotomayor, Ginsburg to Recuse Themselves from Cases Dealing with his Administration.” Politico, February 25.Google Scholar
Ordeshook, Peter C. 1992. A Political Theory Primer. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pérez-Liñán, Aníbal and Araya, Ignacio Arana. 2017. “Strategic Retirement in Comparative Perspective: Supreme Court Justices in Presidential Regimes.” Journal of Law and Courts 5(2): 173–97.Google Scholar
Peretti, Terry J. 2001. In Defense of a Political Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Perry, H. W. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Posner, Eric A. and de Figueiredo., Miguel F. P. 2005. “Is the International Court of Justice Biased?” Journal of Legal Studies 34(2): 599–630.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1993. “What Do Judges and Justices Maximize? (The Same Thing Everybody Else Does).” Supreme Court Economic Review 3: 1–41.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1996. The Problems of Jurisprudence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2008. How Judges Think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2011. Economic Analysis of Law. New York: Aspen.Google Scholar
Pritchett, C. Herman. 1961. Congress versus the Supreme Court. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., Guthrie, Chris, and Wistrich, Andrew J.. 2011. “Probable Cause, Probability, and Hindsight.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8(1): 72–98.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., Guthrie, Chris, and Wistrich, Andrew J.. 2013. “Consilience in the Courtroom: Do Apologies Affect Adjudication?” Cornell Law Review 98(5): 1189–1244.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., Johnson, Sheri Lynn, Wistrich, Andrew J., and Guthrie, Chris. 2009. “Does Unconscious Racial Bias Affect Trial Judges?” Notre Dame Law Review 84(3): 1195–246.Google Scholar
Ramseyer, J. Mark. 1994. “The Puzzling (In)dependence of Courts: A Comparative Approach.” Journal of Legal Studies 23(2): 721–47.Google Scholar
Ramseyer, J. Mark and Rasmusen, Eric B.. 2006. “The Case for Managed Judges: Learning from Japan After the Political Upheaval of 1993.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154(6): 1879–930.Google Scholar
Ramseyer, J. Mark and Rasmussen, Eric B.. 2001. “Why Are Japanese Judges So Conservative in Politically Charged Cases?” American Political Science Review 95(2): 331–44.Google Scholar
Randazzo, Kirk A. 2008. “Strategic Anticipation and the Hierarchy of Justice in the U.S. District Courts.” American Politics Research 36(5): 669–93.Google Scholar
Reichman, Amnon. 2013. Judicial Constitution Making in a Divided Society. In Consequential Courts, eds. Kapiszewski, Diana, Silverstein, Gordon, and Kagan, Robert A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rice, Douglas R. and Zorn, Christopher. 2021. “Corpus-Based Dictionaries for Sentiment Analysis of Specialized Vocabularies.” Political Science Research and Methods 9(1): 20–35.Google Scholar
Richman, Barak D., Bergara, Mario, and Spiller, Pablo T.. 2003. “Modeling Supreme Court Strategic Decision Making: The Congressional Constraint.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 28(2): 247–80.Google Scholar
Robinson, Nick. 2013. “Structure Matters: The Impact of Court Structure on the Indian and U.S. Supreme Courts.” American Journal of Comparative Law 61(1): 173–208.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1972. “Policy Goals and Opinion Coalitions in the Supreme Court.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 16(2): 208–24.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald N. 1992. “Judicial Independence and the Reality of Political Power.” Review of Politics 54(3): 369–98.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald N, Krishnaswamy, Sudhir, and Bail, Shishir, eds. 2019. A Qualified Hope: The Indian Supreme Court and Progressive Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Salamone, Michael F. 2018. Perceptions of a Polarized Court: How Division Among Justices Shapes the Supreme Court’s Public Image. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Salzberger, Eli and Fenn, Paul. 1999. “Judicial Independence: Some Evidence from the English Court of Appeal.” Journal of Law and Economics 42(2): 831–47.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederick. 2000. “Incentives, Reputation, and the Inglorious Determinants of Judicial Behavior.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 68(3): 615–36.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon and Danelski, David J., eds. 1969. Comparative Judicial Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., Sood, Avani Mehta, and Woodson, Benjamin. 2018. “The ‘Murder-Scene Exception’ – Myth or Reality? Empirically Testing the Influence of Crime Severity in Federal Search-and-Seizure Cases.” Virginia Law Review 105(3): 543–94.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. and Spaeth, Harold J.. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., Westerland, Chad, and Lindquist, Stephanie. 2011. “Congress, the Supreme Court, and Judicial Review: Testing a Constitutional Separation of Powers Model.” American Journal of Political Science 55(1): 89–104.Google Scholar
Sen, Maya. 2015. “Is Justice Really Blind? Race and Appellate Review in U.S. Courts.” Journal of Legal Studies 44(S1): 187–229.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Sidney A. and Levy, Richard E.. 1995. “Judicial Incentives and Indeterminacy in Substantive Review of Administrative Decisions.” Duke Law Journal 44(6): 1051–80.Google Scholar
Shayo, Moses and Zussman, Asaf. 2011. “Judicial Ingroup Bias in the Shadow of Terrorism.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 126(3): 1447–84.Google Scholar
Sill, Kaitlyn L. and Haynie, Stacia L.. 2010. “Panel Assignment in Appellate Courts: Strategic Behaviour in the South African Supreme Court of Appeal.” Politikon 37(2): 269–85.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Gordon. 2008. Singapore: The Exception that Proves Rules Matter. In Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes, eds. Ginsburg, Tom and Moustafa, Tamir. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, Dan and Scurich, Nicholas. 2013. “Judicial Overstating.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 88(2): 411–31.Google Scholar
Sisk, Gregory C., Heise, Michael, and Morriss, Andrew P.. 2004. “Searching for the Soul of Judicial Decisionmaking: An Empirical Study of Religious Freedom Decision.” Ohio State Law Journal 65(3): 491–614.Google Scholar
Snidal, Duncan. 1986. The Game Theory of International Politics. In Cooperation Under Anarchy, ed. Oye, Kenneth A.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sommer, Udi. 2010. “A Strategic Court and National Security: Comparative Lessons from the Israeli Case.” Israel Studies Review 25(2): 54–80.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cameron, Charles M.. 1994. “The Hierarchy of Justice: Testing a Principal-Agent Theory of Supreme Court-Circuit Court Interactions.” Journal of Politics 38(3): 673–96.Google Scholar
Sonnemans, Joep and Frans, van Dijk. 2012. “Errors in Judicial Decisions: Experimental Results.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 28(4): 687–716.Google Scholar
Spamann, Holger and Klohn, Lars. 2016. “Justice is Less Blind, and Less Legalistic, Than We Thought: Evidence from an Experiment with Real Judges.” Journal of Legal Studies 45(2): 255–80.Google Scholar
Spiller, Pablo T. and Gely, Rafael. 1992. “Congressional Control or Judicial Independence: The Determinants of U.S. Supreme Court Labor-Relation Decisions.” RAND Journal of Economics 23(4): 463–92.Google Scholar
Spiller, Pablo T. and Tiller, Emerson H.. 1996. “Invitations to Override: Congressional Reversals of Supreme Court Decisions.” International Review of Law and Economics 16(4): 503–21.Google Scholar
Spitzer, Matt and Talley, Eric. 2000. “Judicial Auditing.” Journal of Legal Studies 29(2): 649–83.Google Scholar
Spriggs, James F., II, Maltzman, Forrest, and Wahlbeck, Paul J.. 1999. “Bargaining on the U.S. Supreme Court: Justices’ Responses to Majority Opinion Drafts.” Journal of Politics 61(2): 485–506.Google Scholar
Spriggs, James F., II and Wahlbeck, Paul J.. 1997. “Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 50(2): 365–86.Google Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1988. “Politics and Personal Factors in Retirement from the United States Supreme Court.” Political Behavior 10(2): 180–90.Google Scholar
Staton, Jeffrey K. 2010. Judicial Power and Strategic Communication in Mexico. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Staton, Jeffrey K. and Vanberg, Georg. 2008. “The Value of Vagueness: Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions.” American Journal of Political Science 52(3): 504–19.Google Scholar
Stephenson, Matthew C. 2003. “‘When the Devil Turns … ’: The Political Foundations of Independent Judicial Review.” Journal of Legal Studies 32(1): 59–89.Google Scholar
Sternberg, Sebastian. 2018. “Why Do Courts Craft Vague Decisions? Evidence from a Comparative Study of Court Rulings in Germany and France Using Quantitative Text Analysis,” University of Mannheim, Working Paper, available at https://sebastiansternberg.github.io/pdf/Sternberg_Value_of_Vagueness_CELSE18.pdf.Google Scholar
Stewart, Pamela and Stuhmcke, Anita. 2020. “Judicial Analytics and Australian Courts: A Call for National Ethical Guidelines.” Alternative Law Journal 45(2): 82–7.Google Scholar
Stone, Alec. 1995. Complex Coordinate Construction in France and Germany. In The Global Expansion of Judicial Power, eds. Neal Tate, C. and Vallinder, Torbjörn. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Sweet, Alec Stone. and Brunell, Thomas L.. 1998. “The European Court and the National Courts: A Statistical Analysis of Preliminary References.” Journal of European Public Policy 5(1): 66–97.Google Scholar
Tate, C. Neal. 1971. “The Social Background, Political Recruitment, and Decision-making of the Philippine Supreme Court.” PhD Thesis, Tulane University.Google Scholar
Thaler, Richard H. 2015. Misbehaving: The Making of Behavior Economics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Toma, Eugenia Froedge. 1991. “Congressional Influence and the Supreme Court: The Budget as a Signaling Device.” Journal of Legal Studies 20(1): 131–46.Google Scholar
Vanberg, Georg. 2005. The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vanberg, Georg. 2015. “Constitutional Courts in Comparative Perspective: A Theoretical Assessment.” Annual Review of Political Science 18: 167–85.Google Scholar
Velicogna, Marco and Ng, Gar Yein. 2006. “Legitimacy and Internet in the Judiciary: A Lesson From the Italian Courts’ Websites Experience.” International Journal of Law and Information Technology 14(3): 370–89.Google Scholar
Vining, Richard L., Smelcer, Susan Navarro, and Zorn, Christopher J.. 2006. “Judicial Tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court, 1790–1868: Frustration, Resignation, and Expiration on the Bench.” Studies in American Political Development 20(2): 198–210.Google Scholar
Voeten, Erik. 2008. “The Impartiality of International Judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights.” American Political Science Review 102(4): 417–33.Google Scholar
Voeten, Erik. 2010. “Borrowing and Nonborrowing among International Courts.” Journal of Legal Studies 39(2): 547–76.Google Scholar
Voeten, Erik. 2020. “Populism and Backlashes against International Courts.” Perspectives on Politics, 18(2): 407–22.Google Scholar
Vunikili, Ramya, Ochani, Hitesh, Jaiswal, Divisha et al. 2018. “Analysis of Vocal Implicit Bias in Scotus Decisions Through Predictive Modelling,” available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3307296.Google Scholar
Weiden, David L. 2011. “Judicial Politicization, Ideology, and Activism at the High Courts of the United States, Canada, and Australia.” Political Research Quarterly 64(2): 335–47.Google Scholar
Weinshall, Keren and Epstein, Lee. 2020. “Developing High-Quality Data Infrastructure for Legal Analytics: Introducing the Israeli Supreme Court Database.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 17(2): 416–34.Google Scholar
Weinshall, Keren, Sommer, Udi, and Ritov, Ya’acov. 2018. “Ideological Influences on Governance and Regulation: The Comparative Case of Supreme Courts.” Regulation & Governance 12(3): 334–52.Google Scholar
Weinshall-Margel, Keren. 2011. “Attitudinal and Neo-Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8(3): 556–86.Google Scholar
Westerland, Chad, Segal, Jeffrey A., Epstein, Lee, Cameron, Charles, and Comparato, Scott. 2010. “Strategic Defiance and Compliance in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political Science 54(4): 891–905.Google Scholar
Wetstein, Matthew E., Ostberg, C. L., Songer, Donald R., and Johnson, Susan W.. 2009. “Ideological Consistency and Attitudinal Conflict: A Comparative Analysis of the U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts.” Comparative Political Studies 42(6): 753–92.Google Scholar
Wistrich, Andrew J., Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., and Guthrie, Chris. 2015. “Heart Versus Head: Do Judges Follow the Law or Follow Their Feelings.” Texas Law Review 93(4): 855–923.Google Scholar
Zorn, Christopher and Bowie, Jennifer Barnes. 2010. “Ideological Influences on Decision Making in the Federal Judicial Hierarchy: An Empirical Assessment.” Journal of Politics 72(4): 1212–21.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Strategic Analysis of Judicial Behavior
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Strategic Analysis of Judicial Behavior
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Strategic Analysis of Judicial Behavior
Available formats
×