[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v48y2004i1p123-137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals

Author

Listed:
  • Virginia A. Hettinger
  • Stefanie A. Lindquist
  • Wendy L. Martinek
Abstract
Students of judicial behavior have increasingly turned to strategic accounts to understand judicial decision making. Scholarship on the Supreme Court and state high courts suggests that the decision to dissent is better understood in light of strategic considerations rather than simply reflecting ideological disagreement. We investigate whether these findings comport with behavior by judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. We develop a spatial model of the decision to dissent that incorporates both attitudinal and strategic elements and subject this model to empirical analysis. We find that ideological disagreement between a judge and the majority opinion writer is a more persuasive explanation of the decision to dissent than a strategic account in which a judge conditions a dissent on whether circuit intervention would obtain the judge's preferred outcome. Though we do not discount the existence of other types of strategic behavior on the Courts of Appeals, our research suggests that strategic accounts of dissenting behavior are not generalizable to all courts.

Suggested Citation

  • Virginia A. Hettinger & Stefanie A. Lindquist & Wendy L. Martinek, 2004. "Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 123-137, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:48:y:2004:i:1:p:123-137
    DOI: 10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00060.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00060.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00060.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christoph Engel, 2021. "Lucky You: Your Case is Heard by a Seasoned Panel – Panel Effects in the German Constitutional Court," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2021_05, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, revised 01 Jun 2022.
    2. Chen, Daniel L. & Michaeli, Moti & Spiro, Daniel, 2023. "Non-confrontational extremists," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    3. Julio López-Laborda & Fernando Rodrigo & Eduardo Sanz-Arcega, 2019. "Consensus and dissent in the resolution of conflicts of competence by the Spanish Constitutional Court: the role of federalism and ideology," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 305-330, December.
    4. Sarel, Roee & Demirtas, Melanie, 2021. "Delegation in a multi-tier court system: Are remands in the U.S. federal courts driven by moral hazard?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    5. Christina L. Boyd & Lee Epstein & Andrew D. Martin, 2010. "Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 389-411, April.
    6. Niblett, Anthony & Yoon, Albert H., 2015. "Judicial disharmony: A study of dissent," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 60-71.
    7. Keren Weinshall & Udi Sommer & Ya'acov Ritov, 2018. "Ideological influences on governance and regulation: The comparative case of supreme courts," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 334-352, September.
    8. Bertomeu Juan González & Pellegrina Lucia Dalla & Garoupa Nuno, 2017. "Estimating Judicial Ideal Points in Latin America: The Case of Argentina," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 1-35, March.
    9. Chen, Daniel L. & Michaeli, Moti & Spiro, Daniel, 2020. "Legitimizing Policy," TSE Working Papers 20-1123, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    10. Matthew Hall, 2010. "Randomness Reconsidered: Modeling Random Judicial Assignment in the U.S. Courts of Appeals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 574-589, September.
    11. Paul M. Collins, 2008. "Amici Curiae and Dissensus on the U.S. Supreme Court," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 143-170, March.
    12. Muro, Sergio & Amaral-Garcia, Sofia & Chehtman, Alejandro & Garoupa, Nuno, 2020. "Exploring dissent in the Supreme Court of Argentina," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    13. Paul M. Collins, Jr. & Wendy L. Martinek, 2011. "The Small Group Context: Designated District Court Judges in the U.S. Courts of Appeals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 177-205, March.
    14. Erin B. Kaheny & Susan Brodie Haire & Sara C. Benesh, 2008. "Change over Tenure: Voting, Variance, and Decision Making on the U.S. Courts of Appeals," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 490-503, July.
    15. Nuno Garoupa & Laura Salamero-Teixidó & Adrián Segura, 2022. "Disagreeing in private or dissenting in public: an empirical exploration of possible motivations," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 147-173, April.
    16. Garoupa, Nuno & Grajzl, Peter, 2020. "Spurred by legal tradition or contextual politics? Lessons about judicial dissent from Slovenia and Croatia," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    17. Christoph Engel, 2024. "The German Constitutional Court – Activist, but not Partisan?," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2024_04, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    18. Maxwell Mak & Andrew H. Sidman, 2020. "Separate Opinion Writing Under Mandatory Appellate Jurisdiction: Three‐Judge District Court Panels and the Voting Rights Act," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 116-138, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:48:y:2004:i:1:p:123-137. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.