IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/harjfk/16-031.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measuring Judicial Ideology Using Law Clerk Hiring

Author

Listed:
  • Bonica, Adam

    (Stanford University)

  • Chilton, Adam S.

    (University of Chicago)

  • Goldin, Jacob

    (Stanford University)

  • Rozema, Kyle

    (Northwestern University)

  • Sen, Maya

    (Harvard University)

Abstract

We present a new measure of judicial ideology based on judicial hiring behavior. Specifically, we utilize the ideology of the law clerks hired by federal judges to estimate the ideology of the judges themselves. These Clerk-Based Ideology (CBI) scores complement existing measures of judicial ideology in several ways. First, CBI scores can be estimated for judges across the federal judicial hierarchy. Second, CBI scores can capture temporal changes in ideology. Third, CBI scores avoid case selection and strategic behavior concerns that plague existing vote-based measures. We illustrate the promise of CBI scores through a number of applications.

Suggested Citation

  • Bonica, Adam & Chilton, Adam S. & Goldin, Jacob & Rozema, Kyle & Sen, Maya, 2016. "Measuring Judicial Ideology Using Law Clerk Hiring," Working Paper Series 16-031, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:harjfk:16-031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=1415
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Adam Bonica & Maya Sen, "undated". "A Common-Space Scaling of the American Judiciary and Legal Profession," Working Paper 345856, Harvard University OpenScholar.
    3. Chad Westerland, 2007. "The Judicial Common Space 1," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 303-325, June.
    4. Michael A. Bailey, 2007. "Comparable Preference Estimates across Time and Institutions for the Court, Congress, and Presidency," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(3), pages 433-448, July.
    5. Bonica, Adam & Chilton, Adam S. & Sen, Maya, 2015. "The Political Ideologies of American Lawyers," Working Paper Series 15-049, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    6. Adam Bonica & Michael J. Woodruff, 2015. "A Common-Space Measure of State Supreme Court Ideology," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(3), pages 472-498.
    7. Tom S. Clark & Benjamin Lauderdale, 2010. "Locating Supreme Court Opinions in Doctrine Space," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 871-890, October.
    8. Bonica, Adam & Sen, Maya, 2015. "The Politics of Selecting the Bench from the Bar: The Legal Profession and Partisan Incentives to Politicize the Judiciary," Working Paper Series rwp15-001, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    9. Segal, Jeffrey A. & Cover, Albert D., 1989. "Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(2), pages 557-565, June.
    10. Ryan J. Owens, 2010. "The Separation of Powers and Supreme Court Agenda Setting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 412-427, April.
    11. Adam Bonica, 2014. "Mapping the Ideological Marketplace," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(2), pages 367-386, April.
    12. Windett, Jason H. & Harden, Jeffrey J. & Hall, Matthew E. K., 2015. "Estimating Dynamic Ideal Points for State Supreme Courts," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 461-469, July.
    13. Cliff Carrubba & Barry Friedman & Andrew D. Martin & Georg Vanberg, 2012. "Who Controls the Content of Supreme Court Opinions?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(2), pages 400-412, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Spruk, Rok & Kovac, Mitja, 2019. "Replicating and extending Martin-Quinn scores," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    2. Bonica, Adam & Chilton, Adam S. & Sen, Maya, 2015. "The Political Ideologies of American Lawyers," Working Paper Series 15-049, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    3. Mindock, Maxwell R. & Waddell, Glen R., 2019. "Vote Influence in Group Decision-Making: The Changing Role of Justices' Peers on the Supreme Court," IZA Discussion Papers 12317, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Lerner, Joshua Y. & McCubbins, Mathew D. & Renberg, Kristen M., 2021. "The efficacy of measuring judicial ideal points: The mis-analogy of IRTs," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    5. Bonica, Adam & Sen, Maya, 2017. "The Politics of Selecting the Bench from the Bar: The Legal Profession and Partisan Incentives to Introduce Ideology into Judicial Selection," Working Paper Series rwp17-048, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    6. Bonica, Adam & Chilton, Adam & Rozema, Kyle & Sen, Maya, 2017. "The Legal Academy's Ideological Uniformity," Working Paper Series rwp17-023, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    7. Richard Holden & Michael Keane & Matthew Lilley, 2021. "Peer effects on the United States Supreme Court," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), pages 981-1019, July.
    8. Thomas J. Miles, 2015. "Do Attorney Surveys Measure Judicial Performance or Respondent Ideology? Evidence from Online Evaluations," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 231-267.
    9. Michael A Bailey & Albert Yoon, 2011. "‘While there’s a breath in my body’: The systemic effects of politically motivated retirement from the Supreme Court," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(3), pages 293-316, July.
    10. Gordon Ballingrud, 2021. "Ideology and Risk Focus: Conservatism and Opinion‐Writing In the U.S. Supreme Court," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 281-300, January.
    11. Yonatan Lupu & James H. Fowler, 2013. "Strategic Citations to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 151-186.
    12. Bonica, Adam & Sen, Maya, 2015. "The Politics of Selecting the Bench from the Bar: The Legal Profession and Partisan Incentives to Politicize the Judiciary," Working Paper Series rwp15-001, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    13. Adam Bonica & Adam Chilton & Jacob Goldin & Kyle Rozema & Maya Sen, 2019. "Legal Rasputins? Law Clerk Influence on Voting at the US Supreme Court," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 1-36.
    14. Giansiracusa, Noah & Ricciardi, Cameron, 2019. "Computational geometry and the U.S. Supreme Court," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 1-9.
    15. Raffiee, Joseph & Teodoridis, Florenta & Fehder, Daniel, 2023. "Partisan patent examiners? Exploring the link between the political ideology of patent examiners and patent office outcomes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    16. Wessel Wijtvliet & Arthur Dyevre, 2021. "Judicial ideology in economic cases: Evidence from the General Court of the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(1), pages 25-45, March.
    17. Joshua B. Fischman, 2015. "Do the Justices Vote Like Policy Makers? Evidence from Scaling the Supreme Court with Interest Groups," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 269-293.
    18. Michal Ovádek, 2021. "Supranationalism, constrained? Locating the Court of Justice on the EU integration dimension," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(1), pages 46-69, March.
    19. 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.
    20. Margaret Oppenheimer & Helen LaVan & William Martin, 2015. "A Framework for Understanding Ethical and Efficiency Issues in Pharmaceutical Intellectual Property Litigation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 505-524, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • M51 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Firm Employment Decisions; Promotions

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ecl:harjfk:16-031. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ksharus.html .

    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.