Deferring, Deliberating, or Dodging Review: Explaining Counterjudge Success in the U.S. Courts of Appeals
While panel effects--instances where panel composition affects the votes cast by judge--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 dataset of search and seizure cases decided by the U.S. Courts of Appeals between 1953 and 2010, as well as suggest future avenues of inquiry. Our analysis provides some evidence that counterjudge success stems from a combination of all three theories, though strategic considerations have the substantively strongest and most consistent effects.
|Work Title||Deferring, Deliberating, or Dodging Review: Explaining Counterjudge Success in the U.S. Courts of Appeals|
|License||All rights reserved|
|Publisher Identifier (DOI)||
|Deposited||February 26, 2021 11:01|
This resource is currently not in any collection.