TY - JOUR
T1 - Deferring, deliberating, or dodging review
T2 - Explaining counterjudge success in the us courts of appeals
AU - Hinkle, Rachaelk
AU - Nelson, Michael J.
AU - Hazelton, Morgan L.W.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association.
PY - 2020/9/1
Y1 - 2020/9/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85090308407&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85090308407&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1086/709911
DO - 10.1086/709911
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85090308407
SN - 2164-6570
VL - 8
SP - 277
EP - 300
JO - Journal of Law and Courts
JF - Journal of Law and Courts
IS - 2
ER -