IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/v37y2008i1p87-129.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bias in Judicial Citations: A Window into the Behavior of Judges?

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen J. Choi
  • G. Mitu Gulati

Abstract

This article tests for the presence of bias in judicial citations within federal circuit court opinions. Our findings suggest bias along three dimensions. First, judges base outside-circuit citation decisions in part on the political party of the cited judge. Judges tend to cite judges of the opposite political party less often than would be expected considering the fraction of the total pool of opinions attributable to judges of the opposite political party. Second, judges are more likely to engage in biased citation practices in certain high-stakes situations. These high-stakes situations include opinions dealing with certain subject matters (such as individual rights and campaign finance) as well as opinions in which another judge is in active opposition. Third, judges more often cite those judges who cite them frequently, which suggests the presence of mutual citation clubs. (c) 2008 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen J. Choi & G. Mitu Gulati, 2008. "Bias in Judicial Citations: A Window into the Behavior of Judges?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pages 87-129, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:37:y:2008:i:1:p:87-129
    DOI: 10.1086/588263
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/588263
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/588263?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
    ---><---

    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. Ashenfelter, Orley & Eisenberg, Theodore & Schwab, Stewart J, 1995. "Politics and the Judiciary: The Influence of Judicial Background on Case Outcomes," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(2), pages 257-281, June.
    2. Bhattacharya, Mita & Smyth, Russell, 2001. "The Determinants of Judicial Prestige and Influence: Some Empirical Evidence from the High Court of Australia," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(1), pages 223-252, January.
    3. Thompson, Elizabeth, 2004. "The Importance of," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 58, pages 198-198, August.
    4. Klein, David & Morrisroe, Darby, 1999. "The Prestige and Influence of Individual Judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(2), pages 371-391, June.
    5. Maltzman, Forrest & Wahlbeck, Paul J., 1996. "Strategic Policy Considerations and Voting Fluidity on the Burger Court," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(3), pages 581-592, September.
    6. Landes, William M & Posner, Richard A, 1976. "Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(2), pages 249-307, August.
    7. Landes, William M & Lessig, Lawrence & Solimine, Michael E, 1998. "Judicial Influence: A Citation Analysis of Federal Courts of Appeals Judges," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(2), pages 271-332, June.
    8. Kosma, Montgomery N, 1998. "Measuring the Influence of Supreme Court Justices," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(2), pages 333-372, June.
    9. Russell Smyth & Mita Bhattacharya, 2003. "What Determines Judicial Prestige? An Empirical Analysis for Judges of the Federal Court of Australia," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 5(1), pages 233-262.
    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. Raphael Zingg & Erasmus Elsner, 2020. "Protection heterogeneity in a harmonized European patent system," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 87-131, August.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Monika Stachowiak-Kudła & Janusz Kudła, 2023. "Measuring the prestige of administrative courts," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 3637-3662, August.
    5. Pierre Bentata & Yolande Hiriart, 2015. "Biased Judges: Evidence from French Environmental Cases," Working Papers hal-01377922, HAL.
    6. John Szmer & Robert K. Christensen & Samuel Grubbs, 2020. "What influences the influence of U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 55-81, February.
    7. Vicinanza, Paul & Goldberg, Amir & Srivastava, Sameer, 2021. "Quantifying Vision through Language Demonstrates that Visionary Ideas Come from the Periphery," OSF Preprints 3h8xp, Center for Open Science.
    8. Ash, Elliott & Chen, Daniel L. & Lu, Wei, 2018. "Motivated Reasoning in the Field: Partisanship in Precedent, Prose, Vote, and Retirement in U.S. Circuit Courts, 1800-2013," TSE Working Papers 18-976, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    9. 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.
    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.
    11. Ryan C. Black & James F. Spriggs, 2013. "The Citation and Depreciation of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 325-358, June.
    12. Erik Voeten, 2010. "Borrowing and Nonborrowing among International Courts," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(2), pages 547-576.
    13. Stephen J. Choi & Mitu Gulati & Mirya Holman & Eric A. Posner, 2011. "Judging Women," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 504-532, September.
    14. Verhagen, Mark D. & Yam, Julius, 2021. "The law of attraction: How similarity between judges and lawyers helps win cases in the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).

    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. Berlemann, Michael & Christmann, Robin, 2017. "The Role of Precedents on Court Delay - Evidence from a civil law country," MPRA Paper 80057, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. John Szmer & Robert K. Christensen & Samuel Grubbs, 2020. "What influences the influence of U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 55-81, February.
    3. Smyth, Russell & Bhattacharya, Mita, 2003. "How fast do old judges slow down?: A life cycle study of aging and productivity in the Federal Court of Australia," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 141-164, June.
    4. Berlemann, Michael & Christmann, Robin, 2020. "Disposition time and the utilization of prior judicial decisions: Evidence from a civil law country," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    5. Monika Stachowiak-Kudła & Janusz Kudła, 2023. "Measuring the prestige of administrative courts," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 3637-3662, August.
    6. Ramseyer, J. Mark, 2012. "Talent matters: Judicial productivity and speed in Japan," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 38-48.
    7. Ryan C. Black & James F. Spriggs, 2013. "The Citation and Depreciation of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 325-358, June.
    8. Dimitrova-Grajzl Valentina & Grajzl Peter & Zajc Katarina & Sustersic Janez, 2012. "Judicial Incentives and Performance at Lower Courts: Evidence from Slovenian Judge-Level Data," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 215-252, August.
    9. Gilat Levy, 2005. "Careerist Judges," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(2), pages 275-297, Summer.
    10. Moral, Alfonso & Rosales, Virginia & Martín-Román, Ángel, 2021. "Professional vs. non-professional labour judges: their impact on the quality of judicial decisions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    11. Martin Schneider, "undated". "Erfolgsmessung in Gerichten," German Working Papers in Law and Economics 2004-1-1103, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    12. Rohit Aggarwal & Ram Gopal & Ramesh Sankaranarayanan & Param Vir Singh, 2012. "Blog, Blogger, and the Firm: Can Negative Employee Posts Lead to Positive Outcomes?," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 306-322, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Freyens, Benoit Pierre & Gong, Xiaodong, 2020. "Judicial arbitration of unfair dismissal cases: The role of peer effects," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    15. Kazutaka Takechi, 2023. "How are the precedents of trade policy rules made under the World Trade Organization?," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(3), pages 806-821, November.
    16. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta & Oscar Volij, 2002. "The Measure of Intellectual Influence," Working Papers 2002-13, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    17. 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.
    18. Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci & Bruno Deffains, 2007. "Uncertainty of Law and the Legal Process," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 163(4), pages 627-656, December.
    19. Timothy M. Shaughnessy, 2005. "A Preliminary Analysis of Campaign Contributions in Florida's Legislative and Judicial Elections," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 20(Spring 20), pages 43-67.
    20. Goerke, Laszlo & Neugart, Michael, 2015. "Lobbying and dismissal dispute resolution systems," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 50-62.

    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:ucp:jlstud:v:37:y:2008:i:1:p:87-129. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS .

    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.