IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v5y2008i3p407-446.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Case Selection and the Study of Judicial Politics

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan P. Kastellec
  • Jeffrey R. Lax

Abstract

One complication in studying the Supreme Court and the judicial hierarchy is that the Court's docket is now nearly completely discretionary. Although the Justices’ strategies in picking cases affect the observations we make and the inferences we draw, this is rarely taken into account in studies of judicial politics. In this article, we study how case selection can affect our inferences within judicial politics, including those about decision making in the Supreme Court itself (such as whether law constrains the Justices) and throughout the judicial hierarchy (such as whether lower courts comply with Supreme Court doctrine). We use simulation analysis to show that the inferential problems raised by the Court's case selection range from moderate to severe. At stake are substantive conclusions within some of the most important and controversial debates in judicial politics.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan P. Kastellec & Jeffrey R. Lax, 2008. "Case Selection and the Study of Judicial Politics," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 407-446, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:5:y:2008:i:3:p:407-446
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2008.00129.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2008.00129.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2008.00129.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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevin M. Quinn, 2007. "Assessing Preference Change on the US Supreme Court," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 365-385, June.
    2. Saul Brenner & Joseph Whitmeyer & Harold Spaeth, 2007. "The outcome-prediction strategy in cases denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(1), pages 225-237, January.
    3. Gelman A. & Pasarica C. & Dodhia R., 2002. "Lets Practice What We Preach: Turning Tables into Graphs," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 56, pages 121-130, May.
    4. Ashworth, Scott & Clinton, Joshua D. & Meirowitz, Adam & Ramsay, Kristopher W., 2008. "Design, Inference, and the Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(2), pages 269-273, May.
    5. Eisenberg, Theodore, 1990. "Testing the Selection Effect: A New Theoretical Framework with Empirical Tests," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(2), pages 337-358, June.
    6. George L. Priest & Benjamin Klein, 1984. "The Selection of Disputes for Litigation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(1), pages 1-56, January.
    7. Sartori, Anne E., 2003. "An Estimator for Some Binary-Outcome Selection Models Without Exclusion Restrictions," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 111-138, April.
    8. Zorn, Christopher, 2005. "A Solution to Separation in Binary Response Models," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 157-170, April.
    9. King, Gary & Zeng, Langche, 2001. "Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 137-163, January.
    10. Segal, Jeffrey A., 1997. "Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(1), pages 28-44, March.
    11. Caldeira, Gregory A. & Wright, John R., 1988. "Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(4), pages 1109-1127, December.
    12. Segal, Jeffrey A., 1984. "Predicting Supreme Court Cases Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases, 1962-1981," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 78(4), pages 891-900, December.
    13. Jonathan P. Kastellec, 2007. "Panel Composition and Judicial Compliance on the US Courts of Appeals," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 421-441, June.
    14. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    15. Laver, Michael & Benoit, Kenneth & Garry, John, 2003. "Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(2), pages 311-331, May.
    16. Tim Liao, 1995. "The nonrandom selection of don't knows in binary and ordinal responses: Corrections with the bivariate probit model with sample selection," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 87-110, February.
    17. Allee, Todd L. & Huth, Paul K., 2006. "Legitimizing Dispute Settlement: International Legal Rulings as Domestic Political Cover," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 100(2), pages 219-234, May.
    18. Grofman, Bernard & Brazill, Timothy J, 2002. "Identifying the Median Justice on the Supreme Court through Multidimensional Scaling: Analysis of "Natural Courts" 1953-1991," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 112(1-2), pages 55-79, July.
    19. Simmons, Beth A. & Hopkins, Daniel J., 2005. "The Constraining Power of International Treaties: Theory and Methods," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(4), pages 623-631, November.
    20. Martin, Andrew D. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 134-153, April.
    21. Richards, Mark J. & Kritzer, Herbert M., 2002. "Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(2), pages 305-320, June.
    22. Timpone, Richard J., 1998. "Structure, Behavior, and Voter Turnout in the United States," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(1), pages 145-158, March.
    23. Kort, Fred, 1957. "Predicting Supreme Court Decisions Mathematically: A Quantitative Analysis of the “Right to Counsel†Cases," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(1), pages 1-12, March.
    24. Manski, Charles F & Lerman, Steven R, 1977. "The Estimation of Choice Probabilities from Choice Based Samples," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(8), pages 1977-1988, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Niblett, Anthony, 2013. "Tracking inconsistent judicial behavior," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 9-20.
    2. Miguel Santolino & Magnus Söderberg, 2011. "The influence of decision-maker effort and case complexity on appealed rulings subject to multi-categorical selection," IREA Working Papers 201115, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Sep 2011.
    3. Eisenberg, Theodore & Huang, Kuo-Chang, 2012. "The effect of rules shifting supreme court jurisdiction from mandatory to discretionary—An empirical lesson from Taiwan," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 3-18.
    4. Arthur Dyevre & Nicolas Lampach, 2021. "Issue attention on international courts: Evidence from the European Court of Justice," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 793-815, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Miguel Santolino & Magnus Söderberg, 2014. "Modelling appellate courts’ responses in motor injury disputes," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 393-407, December.
    7. Shay Lavie, 2017. "Discretionary review and undesired cases," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 265-285, October.
    8. Tom S. Clark & Aaron B. Strauss, 2010. "The Implications of High Court Docket Control for Resource Allocation and Legal Efficiency," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 22(2), pages 247-268, April.
    9. Tom S Clark, 2016. "Scope and precedent: judicial rule-making under uncertainty," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(3), pages 353-384, July.
    10. Pierre Bentata & Romain Espinosa & Yolande Hiriart, 2019. "Correction Activities by France’s Supreme Courts and Control over their Dockets," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 129(2), pages 169-204.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Gliksberg, 2014. "Does the Law Matter? Win Rates and Law Reforms," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 378-407, June.
    2. Freyens, Benoit Pierre & Gong, Xiaodong, 2017. "Judicial decision making under changing legal standards: The case of dismissal arbitration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 108-126.
    3. Anthony Niblett & Richard A. Posner & Andrei Shleifer, 2010. "The Evolution of a Legal Rule," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(2), pages 325-358.
    4. Stock, Ruth Maria & von Hippel, Eric & Gillert, Nils Lennart, 2016. "Impacts of personality traits on consumer innovation success," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 757-769.
    5. Jeff Yates & Damon M. Cann & Brent D. Boyea, 2013. "Judicial Ideology and the Selection of Disputes for U.S. Supreme Court Adjudication," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 847-865, December.
    6. Menevis Cilizoglu & Navin A Bapat, 2020. "Economic coercion and the problem of sanctions-proofing," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(4), pages 385-408, July.
    7. Abhirup Chakrabarti & Will Mitchell, 2013. "The Persistent Effect of Geographic Distance in Acquisition Target Selection," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 1805-1826, December.
    8. Greg Goelzhauser, 2024. "Constitutional accountability for police shootings," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 92-108, March.
    9. Joshua A Strayhorn, 2019. "Competing signals in the judicial hierarchy," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(3), pages 308-329, July.
    10. Kuo‐Chang Huang & Kong‐Pin Chen & Chang‐Ching Lin, 2010. "An Empirical Investigation of Settlement and Litigation—The Case of Taiwanese Labor Disputes," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(4), pages 786-810, December.
    11. Utpal Bhattacharya & Neal Galpin & Bruce Haslem, 2007. "The Home Court Advantage in International Corporate Litigation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 50(4), pages 625-660.
    12. Michael Ziegelmeyer & Julius Nick, 2013. "Backing out of private pension provision: lessons from Germany," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 40(3), pages 505-539, August.
    13. Trent Geisler & Herman Ray & Ying Xie, 2023. "Finding the Proverbial Needle: Improving Minority Class Identification Under Extreme Class Imbalance," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 40(1), pages 192-212, April.
    14. Lahiri, Kajal & Yang, Liu, 2013. "Forecasting Binary Outcomes," Handbook of Economic Forecasting, in: G. Elliott & C. Granger & A. Timmermann (ed.), Handbook of Economic Forecasting, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1025-1106, Elsevier.
    15. Rorie Spill Solberg & Stefanie A. Lindquist, 2006. "Activism, Ideology, and Federalism: Judicial Behavior in Constitutional Challenges Before the Rehnquist Court, 1986–2000," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), pages 237-261, July.
    16. Sarlin, Peter & von Schweinitz, Gregor, 2021. "Optimizing Policymakers’ Loss Functions In Crisis Prediction: Before, Within Or After?," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 100-123, January.
    17. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    18. Patrick Hamm & David Stuckler & Lawrence King, 2006. "Mass Privatization and the Postcommunist Mortality Crisis," Working Papers wp118, Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
    19. Fischer, Timo & Henkel, Joachim, 2012. "Patent trolls on markets for technology – An empirical analysis of NPEs’ patent acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1519-1533.
    20. A. Smith, Jeffrey & E. Todd, Petra, 2005. "Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 305-353.

    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:empleg:v:5:y:2008:i:3:p:407-446. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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)1740-1461 .

    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.