Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T17:28:16.798Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Judicial Specialization and Ideological Decision Making in the US Courts of Appeals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Brett Curry  and
Banks Miller
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigate the influence of subject matter expertise, opinion specialization, and judicial experience on the role of ideology in decision making in the courts of appeals in a generalized, as opposed to specialized, setting. We find that subject matter experts and opinion specialists are significantly more likely to engage in ideological decision making than their nonspecialist counterparts and that opinion specialization is a particularly potent factor in ideological decision making. Further, increased judicial experience has no effect on the conditional use of ideology. We discuss the potentially wide‐ranging implications of our findings for both theory and policy.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , Winter 2015 , pp. 29 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2015 

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

References

Atkins, Burton M. 1974. Opinion Assignments on the United States Courts of Appeals: The Question of Issue Specialization. Western Political Quarterly 27:409–428.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Robert D., and Audretsch, David B. 2011. Economic Doctrines and Approaches to Antitrust. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation 1–33. http://www.itif.org/files/2011‐antitrust.pdf (accessed August 25, 2012).Google Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L. 2009. The Constraining Capacity of Legal Doctrine on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 103:474–495.Google Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L. 2011. Choices in Context: How Case‐Level Factors Influence the Magnitude of Ideological Voting on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Politics Research 39:142–175.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1977. Judicial Specialization, Litigant Influence, and Substantive Policy: The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. Law & Society Review 11:823–850.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1990. Specializing the Federal Courts: Neutral Reforms or Efforts to Shape Judicial Policy? Judicature 74:217–224.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2011. Specializing the Courts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baye, Michael, and Wright, Joshua D. 2010. Is Antitrust Too Complicated for Generalist Judges? The Impact of Economic Complexity and Judicial Training on Appeals. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1319888 (accessed December 1, 2012).Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, Katz, Jonathan N., and Tucker, Richard 1998. Taking Time Seriously: Time‐Series‐Cross‐Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable. American Journal of Political Science 42:1260–1288.Google Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William Roberts, and Golder, Matt 2006. Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses. Political Analysis 14:63–82.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul, and Spaeth, Harold J. 1986. Issue Specialization in Majority Opinion Assignment on the Burger Court. Western Political Quarterly 39:520–527.Google Scholar
Bruff, Harold H. 1991. Specialized Courts in Administrative Law. Administrative Law Review 43:329–366.Google Scholar
Calabresi, Guido. 2002. The Current, Subtle—And Not So Subtle—Rejection of an Independent Judiciary. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 4:637–647.Google Scholar
Cheng, Edward K. 2008. The Myth of the Generalist Judge: An Empirical Analysis of Opinion Specialization in the Federal Courts of Appeals. Stanford Law Review 61:519–572.Google Scholar
Clayton, Cornell W., and Gillman, Howard 1999. Supreme Court Decision‐Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Paul M. 2008. The Consistency of Judicial Choice. Journal of Politics 70:861–873.Google Scholar
Dreyfuss, Rochelle C. 1990. Specialized Adjudication. Brigham Young University Law Review 1990:377–441.Google Scholar
Edelman, Paul H., Klein, David E., and Lindquist, Stefanie A. 2008. Measuring Deviations from Expected Voting Patterns on Collegial Courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 5:819–852.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Mershon, Carol 1996. Measuring Political Preferences. American Journal of Political Science 40:534–554.Google Scholar
Farhang, Sean, and Wawro, Gregory 2004. Institutional Dynamics on the U.S. Court of Appeals: Minority Representation Under Panel Decision Making. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 20:299–330.Google Scholar
Federico, Christopher M., and Schneider, Monica C. 2007. Political Expertise and the Use of Ideology: Moderating the Effects of Evaluative Motivation. Public Opinion Quarterly 71:221–252.Google Scholar
Giles, Micheal W., Hettinger, Virginia A., and Peppers, Todd 2001. Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas. Political Research Quarterly 54:623–641.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W., and Krehbiel, Keith 1995. The Gains from Exchange Hypothesis of Legislative Organization. In Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions, ed. Shepsle, Kenneth A. and Barry, R. Weingast, , 37–70. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard, and Clayton, Cornell W. 1999. The Supreme Court in American Politics: New Institutionalist Approaches. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Goldman, Sheldon. 1966. Voting Behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals. American Political Science Review 60:364–374.Google Scholar
Goldman, Sheldon. 1975. Voting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals Revisited. American Political Science Review 69:491–506.Google Scholar
Goodsell, Charles T. 2011. Mission Mystique: Belief Systems in Public Agencies. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Gryski, Gerard S., and Main, Eleanor C. 1986. Social Backgrounds as Predictors of Votes on State Courts of Last Resort: The Case of Sex Discrimination. Western Political Quarterly 39:528–537.Google Scholar
Hall, Douglas T., and Schneider, Benjamin 1972. Correlates of Organizational Identification as a Function of Career Pattern and Organizational Type. Administrative Science Quarterly 17:340–350.Google Scholar
Hansen, Wendy, Johnson, Renee, and Unah, Isaac 1995. Specialized Courts, Bureaucratic Agencies, and the Politics of U.S. Trade Policy. American Journal of Political Science 39:529–557.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, Donald W. 2011. Development: Recent Trends in Federal Antitrust Class Action Cases. Antitrust ABA 24:58–61.Google Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., Lindquist, Stefanie A., and Martinek, Wendy L. 2003. Acclimation Effects on the United States Courts of Appeals. Social Science Quarterly 84:792–810.Google Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., Lindquist, Stefanie A., and Martinek, Wendy L. 2004. Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. American Journal of Political Science 48:123–137.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: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Howard, Robert M 2005. Comparing the Decision Making of Specialized Courts and General Courts: An Exploration of Tax Decisions. Justice System Journal 26:135–148.Google Scholar
Judd, Charles M., and Downing, James M. 1990. Political Expertise and the Development of Attitude Consistency. Social Cognition 8:104–124.Google Scholar
Kastellec, Jonathan P. 2013. Racial Diversity and Judicial Influence on Appellate Courts. American Journal of Political Science 57:167–183.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. 1990. Expertise and Political Psychology. Social Cognition 8:1–8.Google Scholar
Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A. 2003. The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Legomsky, Stephen. 1990. Specialized Justice: Courts, Administrative Tribunals, and a Cross‐National Theory of Specialization. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Londregan, John, and Snyder, James M., Jr. 1995. Comparing Committee and Floor Preferences. In Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions, ed. Shepsle, Kenneth A. and Barry, R. Weingast, , 139–172. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Macey, Jonathan R. 1992. Organizational Design and Political Control of Administrative Agencies. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 8:93–110.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest. 1997. Competing Principals: Committees, Parties, and the Organization of Congress. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, and Smith, Steven S. 1995. Principals, Goals, Dimensionality, and Congressional Committees. In Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions, ed. Shepsle, Kenneth A. and Barry, R. Weingast, , 253–72. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, and Wahlbeck, Paul J. 1996. May it Please the Chief? Opinion Assignments in the Rehnquist Court. American Journal of Political Science 40:421–433.Google Scholar
March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P. 1984. The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. American Political Science Review 78:734–749.Google Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen M., and Pinney, Neil 1990. The Effects of General and Domain‐Specific Expertise on Political Memory and Judgment. Social Cognition 8:9–30.Google Scholar
Miller, Banks, and Curry, Brett 2009. Expertise, Experience, and Ideology on Specialized Courts: The Case of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Law & Society Review 43:839–864.Google Scholar
Miller, Banks, and Curry, Brett 2013. Experts Judging Experts: The Role of Expertise in Reviewing Agency Decision Making. Law & Social Inquiry 38:55–71.Google Scholar
Moore, Kimberly. 2001. Are District Judges Equipped to Resolve Patent Cases? Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 15:1–4.Google Scholar
Nash, Jonathan Remy, and Pardo, Rafael I. 2012. Does Ideology Matter in Bankruptcy? Voting Behavior on the Courts of Appeals. William & Mary Law Review 53:919–985.Google Scholar
Pacelle, Richard L. Jr. 2003. Between Law and Politics: The Solicitor General and the Structuring of Race, Gender, and Reproductive Rights Litigation. College Station, TX: A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Pacelle, Richard L. Jr., Curry, Brett W., and Marshall, Bryan W. 2011. Decision Making by the Modern Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Page, William H. 1991. Ideological Conflict and the Origins of Antitrust Policy. Tulane Law Review 66:1–67.Google Scholar
Page, William H. 2008. The Ideological Origins and Evolution of U.S. Antitrust Law. Issues in Competition Law and Policy 1:1–17.Google Scholar
Posavac, Steven S., Sanbonmatsu, David M., and Fazio, Russell H. 1997. Considering the Best Choice: Effects of the Salience and Accessibility of Alternatives on Attitude‐Decision Consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73:253–261.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1983. Will the Federal Courts of Appeals Survive Until 1984? An Essay on Delegation and Specialization of the Judicial Function. Southern California Law Review 56:761–791.Google Scholar
Revesz, Richard L. 1990. Specialized Courts and the Administrative Lawmaking System. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 136:1111–1174.Google Scholar
Sag, Matthew, Jacobi, Tonja, and Stych, Maxim 2009. Ideology and Exceptionalism in Intellectual Property: An Empirical Study. California Law Review 97:801–856.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seron, Carroll. 1978. Judicial Reorganization: The Politics of Reform in the Federal Bankruptcy Court. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R. 1990. Criteria for Publication of Opinions in the United States Courts of Appeals: Formal Rules Versus Empirical Reality. Judicature 73:307–313.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Davis, Sue, and Haire, Susan 1994. A Reappraisal of Diversification in the Federal Courts: Gender Effects in the Courts of Appeals. Journal of Politics 56:425–439.Google Scholar
Tacha, Deanell Reece. 1999. The Federal Courts in the 21st Century. Chapman Law Review 2:7–26.Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1960. The Analysis of Behavior Patterns on the United States Supreme Court. Journal of Politics 22:629–653.Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1970. The Use of Power on the Supreme Court: The Opinion Assignments of Earl Warren. Journal of Public Law 30:49–67.Google Scholar
Unah, Isaac. 1998. The Courts of International Trade: Judicial Specialization, Expertise, and Bureaucratic Policy‐Making. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Unah, Isaac, and Hancock, Ange‐Marie 2006. U.S. Supreme Court Decision Making, Case Salience, and the Attitudinal Model. Law & Policy 28:295–320.Google Scholar
Vardi, Yoav, Wiener, Yoash, and Popper, Micha 1989. The Value Content of Organizational Mission as a Factor in the Commitment of Members. Psychological Reports 65:27–34.Google Scholar
Walker, John M. Jr. 1999. Comments on Professionalism. Journal of the Institute for the Study of Legal Ethics 2:111–114.Google Scholar
Walker, Thomas G., and Barrow, Deborah J. 1985. The Diversification of the Federal Bench: Policy and Process Ramifications. Journal of Politics 47:596–617.Google Scholar
Wetstein, Matthew E., Ostberg, C. L., Songer, Donald R., and W. Johnson, Susan 2009. Ideological Consistency and Attitudinal Conflict: A Comparative Analysis of the U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts. Comparative Political Studies 42:763–792.Google Scholar
Wiener, Yoash. 1982. Commitment in Organizations: A Normative View. Academy of Management Review 7:418–428.Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wood, Diane P. 1997. Generalist Judges in a Specialized World. SMU Law Review 50:1755–1768.Google Scholar
Zorn, Christopher. 2001. Generalized Estimating Equation Models for Correlated Data: A Review with Applications. American Journal of Political Science 45:470–490.Google Scholar
Zorn, Christopher. 2006. Comparing GEE and “Robust” Standard Errors for Conditionally Dependent Data. Political Research Quarterly 59:329–341.Google Scholar

Case Cited

In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litig., 295 F.3d 651 (2002).Google Scholar

Statutes Cited

Clayton Act of 1914 (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 12 et seq.).Google Scholar
Robinson‐Patman Act of 1935 (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 13 et seq.).Google Scholar
Sherman Act of 1890 (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 et seq.).Google Scholar