Recent research reveals judicial tendencies to decide cases more conservatively during times of war. Building on studies in political psychology, we use the observed movement in favor of increased security versus liberty in times of war on the courts to investigate differences in how liberals and conservatives are motivated by threat concerns. We find that war mainly conditions decision making by liberal judges in criminal and civil liberties cases. The results furthermore suggest that ideological differences play little role in wartime decision making for civil liberties cases.

This article challenges international criminal tribunals’ (ICTs) capacity to perform the socially constitutive work of transitional justice. Highlighting paradigmatic ICT jurisprudence, I show that both the “progress” and “justice” constructs central to the work and legitimacy of international criminal law are unrealizable under current ICT practice. This is due to international criminal law’s foundational, legitimizing basis in natural law rather than political liberalism. I call for a revision of ICT institutional accountability structures.

Interest groups attempt to shape the content of law and policy in a variety of venues, including the legal system. Though the bulk of research dedicated to understanding interest group participation in litigation occurs in the context of the United States, there have been growing efforts to explore this important topic from a cross-national perspective. We contribute to this literature by investigating interest group amicus curiae and intervener activity across 11 English-speaking high courts during the 1969–2002 era. Our results support our theoretical argument that institutional features of courts and nations heavily shape levels of organizational litigation, including the power of judicial review, the rules governing third-party participation, and the presence of a bill of rights. This research informs our understanding of institutional design, social movement litigation, and the democratic nature of courts.

The Supreme Court sometimes chooses to use its limited time to revisit earlier decisions. In doing so, the justices signal the importance of reasserting, correcting, or reconsidering their arguments. We find that the likelihood of the Supreme Court revisiting a case in a given year increases significantly as the number of circuit courts critical of that opinion increases. These results suggest that an acknowledgment of the important role of the circuit courts influences the decision to revisit cases. Even if the Court merely clarifies or reinforces earlier opinions, criticism in the circuits prompts the Court to take some action. Though the Supreme Court’s word is final, barring a constitutional amendment or legislative override in nonconstitutional cases, the mechanism of criticism in the circuits allows reconsideration of many issues already decided by the Court and sheds light on the importance of institutional structures to the maintenance of the rule of law.

The Brazilian Supreme Court has developed an informal mechanism of timing control: each justice has the power (pedido de vista) to request more time to study the files of a given case. In this article, we use a database of over 1.5 million cases to calculate vista request duration and compare vista behavior to other activities in which caseload and the justice’s efficiency play a role. Our results show that vistas can function as an individual power, unconstrained by the Court’s internal rules of procedure, to indefinitely remove cases from the agenda, in ways that cannot be explained by the Court’s workload. We also find initial evidence of the vistas being used for strategic purposes, when justices wait for a case to be decided in a more favorable composition or political context. These results suggest that comparative analyses of courts should look beyond formal rules of docket control to study informal means of delay.

Understanding how attorneys’ perceptions of “insider” and “outsider” status affect negotiations is of both theoretical and practical importance for understanding the judicial system. We utilize a comprehensive survey of attorneys from one state to explore views of trustworthiness and negotiations. Overall, as attorneys become more embedded in their in-group, they increasingly report lower trust levels and less effective negotiations with outsiders. These relationships do vary somewhat by the scope and location of the attorney’s practice. Our findings provide insight into one possible causal mechanism underlying the “repeat player” advantage; they also suggest new directions for research on case outcomes.