IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jleorg/v35y2019i1p1-36..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Legal Rasputins? Law Clerk Influence on Voting at the US Supreme Court

Author

Listed:
  • Adam Bonica
  • Adam Chilton
  • Jacob Goldin
  • Kyle Rozema
  • Maya Sen

Abstract

Supreme Court justices employ law clerks to help them perform their duties. We study whether these clerks influence how justices vote in the cases they hear. We exploit the timing of the clerkship hiring process to link variation in clerk ideology to variation in judicial voting. To measure clerk ideology, we match clerks to the universe of disclosed political donations. We find that clerks exert modest influence on judicial voting overall, but substantial influence in cases that are high-profile, legally significant, or close decisions. We interpret these results to suggest that clerk influence occurs through persuasion rather than delegation of decision-making authority.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:35:y:2019:i:1:p:1-36.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jleo/ewy024
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam Bonica & Maya Sen, "undated". "A Common-Space Scaling of the American Judiciary and Legal Profession," Working Paper 345856, Harvard University OpenScholar.
    2. Ebonya L. Washington, 2008. "Female Socialization: How Daughters Affect Their Legislator Fathers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 311-332, March.
    3. Bonica, Adam & Sen, Maya, 2017. "A Common-Space Scaling of the American Judiciary and Legal Profession," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 114-121, January.
    4. Adam N. Glynn & Maya Sen, 2015. "Identifying Judicial Empathy: Does Having Daughters Cause Judges to Rule for Women's Issues?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(1), pages 37-54, January.
    5. McCubbins, Mathew D & Noll, Roger G & Weingast, Barry R, 1987. "Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 243-277, Fall.
    6. 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.
    7. Adam Bonica, 2014. "Mapping the Ideological Marketplace," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(2), pages 367-386, April.
    8. Adam S. Chilton & Eric A. Posner, 2015. "An Empirical Study of Political Bias in Legal Scholarship," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(2), pages 277-314.
    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. Brian D. Feinstein & Jennifer Nou, 2023. "Strategic subdelegation," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 746-817, December.

    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. 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.
    2. Spruk, Rok & Kovac, Mitja, 2019. "Replicating and extending Martin-Quinn scores," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    3. Acharya, Avidit & Blackwell, Matthew & Sen, Maya, 2015. "Explaining Attitudes from Behavior: A Cognitive Dissonance Approach," Working Paper Series rwp15-026, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. 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.
    5. Brian D. Feinstein & Jennifer Nou, 2023. "Strategic subdelegation," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 746-817, December.
    6. Paweł Niszczota & Michał Białek, 2021. "The effect of gender and parenting daughters on judgments of morally controversial companies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Van Effenterre, Clémentine, 2020. "Papa does preach: Daughters and polarization of attitudes toward abortion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 188-201.
    8. Oeindrila Dube & S.P. Harish, 2017. "Queens," NBER Working Papers 23337, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Shin, Jiyoung & Moon, Jon Jungbien & Kang, Jingoo, 2023. "Where does ESG pay? The role of national culture in moderating the relationship between ESG performance and financial performance," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(3).
    10. Cindy Cheng & Joan Barceló & Allison Spencer Hartnett & Robert Kubinec & Luca Messerschmidt, 2020. "COVID-19 Government Response Event Dataset (CoronaNet v.1.0)," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(7), pages 756-768, July.
    11. Martin Andrew D. & Hazelton Morgan L.W., 2012. "What Political Science Can Contribute to the Study of Law," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 511-529, October.
    12. Guimaraesy, Bernardo & Meyerhof Salama, Bruno, 2017. "Contingent judicial deference: theory and application to usury laws," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86146, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. 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).
    14. Claudine Desrieux & Romain Espinosa, 2019. "Case selection and judicial decision-making: evidence from French labor courts," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 57-88, February.
    15. Cindy Cheng & Joan Barcelo & Allison Spencer Hartnett & Robert Kubinec & Luca Messerschmidt, 2020. "CoronaNet: A Dyadic Dataset of Government Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic," Working Papers 20200042, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Apr 2020.
    16. Pamela Jakiela & Owen Ozier & Lia Fernald & Heather Knauer, 2020. "Big Sisters," Working Papers 559, Center for Global Development.
    17. Guimarães, Bernardo de Vasconcellos & Salama, Bruno Meyerhof, 2017. "Contingent judicial deference: theory and application to usury laws," Textos para discussão 440, FGV EESP - Escola de Economia de São Paulo, Fundação Getulio Vargas (Brazil).
    18. Mireia Borrell-Porta & Joan Costa-Font & Julia Philipp, 2019. "The ‘mighty girl’ effect: does parenting daughters alter attitudes towards gender norms?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 71(1), pages 25-46.
    19. Alexei V. Ovtchinnikov & Philip Valta, 2023. "Self-Funding of Political Campaigns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 2425-2448, April.
    20. Nicole Y. Wesley & James C. Garand, 2021. "The Effect of Children's Gender on Parents’ Attitudes Toward Women," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1787-1802, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K00 - Law and Economics - - General - - - General (including Data Sources and Description)
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    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:oup:jleorg:v:35:y:2019:i:1:p:1-36.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jleo .

    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.