Deferring, deliberating, or dodging review: Explaining counterjudge success in the us courts of appeals

Rachaelk Hinkle, Michael J. Nelson, Morgan L.W. Hazelton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

While panel effects—instances in which panel composition affects the votes cast by judges—have been widely documented, scholars are unsure why these patterns persist. We outline three possible mechanisms, acquiescence, deliberation, and strategy, through which panel effects might occur; develop indicators for each; and test them using a data set of search and seizure cases decided by the US courts of appeals between 1953 and 2010. Our analysis provides some evidence that counterjudge success stems from a combination of all three theories, although strategic considerations have the substantively strongest and most consistent effects.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)277-300
Number of pages24
JournalJournal of Law and Courts
Volume8
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2020

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Political Science and International Relations
  • Law

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Deferring, deliberating, or dodging review: Explaining counterjudge success in the us courts of appeals'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this