Hostname: page-component-669899f699-ggqkh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-29T14:05:33.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing Circuits: Are Some U.S. Courts of Appeals More Liberal or Conservative Than Others?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Andreas Broscheid
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates possible ideological differences between circuits of the U.S. Courts of Appeals. It looks at the distribution of three-judge panel ideologies on the circuits and at differences in decisionmaking patterns, testing several theoretical approaches to circuit differences: the attitudinalist approach, arguing that different judicial ideologies account for intercircuit differences; historical-institutionalist approaches that argue that circuit norms lead to differences in the proportion of conservative decisions and in the effects of judicial ideologies; and the rational-choice institutionalist argument that overall circuit preferences constrain three-judge panel decisions through the en banc process. Using a multilevel logit model, the study finds some support for the attitudinalist and historical-institutionalist accounts of circuit differences. It also finds that intercircuit ideological differences contribute comparatively little to the prediction of appeals court outcomes.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 171 - 194
Copyright
© 2011 Law and Society Association.

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. I would like to thank Chris Blake, Suraj Jacobs, Carroll Seron, Steve Wasby, anonymous reviewers, and the editors of the Law & Society Review for comments and suggestions. I thank Rachel Mulheren for her research assistance.

References

Administrative Office of the United States Courts (2008) 2007 Annual Report of the Director: Judicial Business of the United States Courts. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Atkins, Burton M., & Green, Justin J. (1976) “Consensus on the United States Courts of Appeals: Illusion or Reality?,” 20 American J. of Political Science 735–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, Jennifer (2005) “‘A Pattern of Conservatism,’” Newsweek Web Exclusive, 1 Nov., http://web.archive.org/web/20051107082710/www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9880810/site/newsweek/ (accessed 30 Jan. 2010).Google Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L., & Westerland, Chad (2009) “Modeling Circuit Effects on the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Paper prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, ON (Sept.).Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (2006) Judges and Their Audiences. A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jonathan M. (2002) Inside Appellate Courts. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, John W. (2009) “The New Nattering Nabobs of Negativism Are Gunning for Obama's Judicial Nominees: A Republican Strategy That We Must All Hope Fails,” FindLaw's Writ, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20090417.html (accessed 26 Jan. 2010).Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, et al. (2007) “The Judicial Common Space,” 23 J. of Law, Economics and Organization 303–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee (2009) “Lee Epstein: Research,” Northwestern University Law School, 12 July, http://epstein.law.northwestern.edu/research/JCS.html (accessed 27 Oct. 2009).Google Scholar
Fein, Bruce (2006) “Race Separation Ratified,” Washington Times, 26 Dec., p. A16.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, & Hill, Jennifer (2007) Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Giles, Michael W., Hettinger, Virginia A., et al. (2002) “Measuring the Preferences of Federal Judges: Alternatives to Party of the Appointing President.” Unpublished manuscript, Emory University.Google Scholar
Giles, Michael W., Walker, Thomas G., et al. (2006) “Setting a Judicial Agenda: The Decision to Grant En Banc Review in the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” 68 J. of Politics 852–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillman, Howard (1999) “The Court as an Idea, Not a Building (or a Game): Interpretive Institutionalism and the Analysis of Supreme Court Decision-Making,” in Clayton, C. W. Gillman, H., eds., Supreme Court Decision-Making. New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, Sheldon (1966) “Voting Behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals, 1961–1964,” 60 American Political Science Rev. 374–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haire, Susan B. (2006) “Judicial Selection and Decisionmaking in the Ninth Circuit,” 48 Arizona Law Rev. 267–85.Google Scholar
Hatch, Orrin G. (2002) “A Circuitous Court; Pledge Decision Is Judicial Activism,” Washington Times, 2 July, p. A17.Google Scholar
Herron, Michael C. (1999) “Postestimation Uncertainty in Limited Dependent Variable Models,” 8 Political Analysis 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., et al. (2004) “Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” 48 American J. of Political Science 123–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, Simon (2004) “Bayesian Analysis for Political Research,” 7 Annual Rev. of Political Science 483–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastellec, Jonathan P. (2007) “Panel Composition and Judicial Compliance on the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” 23 J. of Law, Economics, & Organization 421–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastellec, Jonathan P., Lax, Jeffrey R. (2008) “Case Selection and the Study of Judicial Politics,” 5 J. of Empirical Legal Studies 407–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary (1989) Unifying Political Methodology. The Likelihood Theory of Statistical Inference. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Klein, David E. (2002) Making Law in the United States Courts of Appeals. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuersten, Ashlyn K., & Haire, Susan B. (2007) “Update to the Appeals Court Database (1997–2002),” Judicial Research Initiative, http://www.cas.sc.edu/poli/juri/appctdata.htm (accessed 10 Feb. 2010).Google Scholar
O'Reilly, Bill (2002) “Believe It or Not,” WorldNetDaily.com, 3 July, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=14447 (accessed 7 Sept. 2009).Google Scholar
Richardson, Richard J., & Vines, Kenneth N. (1967) “Review, Dissent and the Appellate Process: A Political Interpretation,” 29 J. of Politics 597–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Kevin M. (2006) “Understanding Judicial Hierarchy: Reversals and the Behavior of Intermediate Appellate Judges,” 40 Law & Society Rev. 163–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Spaeth, Harold J. (2002) The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R. (1982) “Consensual and Nonconsensual Decisions in Unanimous Opinions of the United States Courts of Appeals,” 26 American J. of Political Science 225–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R. (2005) “The United States Courts of Appeals Data Base, 1925–1996,” Judicial Research Initiative, http://www.cas.sc.edu/poli/juri/appctdata.htm (accessed 10 Feb. 2010).Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., & Sheehan, Reginald S. (1992) “Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals,” 36 American J. of Political Science 235–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Segal, Jeffrey A., et al. (1994) “The Hierarchy of Justice: Testing a Principal-Agent Model of Supreme Court-Circuit Court Interactions,” 38 American J. of Political Science 673–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Sheehan, Reginald S., et al. (2000) Continuity and Change on the United States Courts of Appeals. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sontag, Deborah (2003) “The Power of the Fourth,” New York Times Magazine, 9 March, p. 38.Google Scholar
Spiegelhalter, David J., et al. (2002) “Bayesian Measures of Model Complexity and Fit,” 64 J. of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 583–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturtz, Sibylle, et al. (2005) “R2winbugs: A Package for Running WinBUGS From R,” 12 J. of Statistical Software 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass (2005) “On the Contrary,” Washington Post, 1 Nov., p. A25.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R., et al. (2006) Are Judges Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Thelen, Kathleen, & Steinmo, Sven (1992) “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” in Steinmo, S. et al., eds., Structuring Politics. Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Van Winkle, Steven R. (1997) “Dissent as a Signal: Evidence From the U.S. Court of Appeals.” Paper prepared for delivery at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 29 Aug.Google Scholar
Wasby, Stephen L. (2004) “Unpublished Court of Appeals Decisions: A Hard Look at the Process,” 14 Southern California Interdisciplinary Law J. 67–124.Google Scholar
Wasby, Stephen L. (2005) “Publication (or Not) of Appellate Rulings: An Evaluation of Guidelines,” 2 Seton Hall Circuit Rev. 41–117.Google Scholar