3: Judicial Preferences and Decisions

How do judges’ preferences manifest in their decisions? This week we dive into the empirical literature documenting the heterogeneity of judicial preferences and their reconciliation on court panels across a variety of political and judicial contexts.

Mandatory readings

…

Optional readings

Smith, Joseph L., and Emerson H. Tiller. “The strategy of judging: Evidence from administrative law.” The Journal of Legal Studies 31, no. 1 (2002): 61-82.

Hanretty, Chris. “Dissent in Iberia: The ideal points of justices on the Spanish and Portuguese Constitutional Tribunals.” European Journal of Political Research 51, no. 5 (2012): 671-692.

Hanretty, Chris. “The decisions and ideal points of British Law Lords.” British Journal of Political Science 43, no. 3 (2013): 703-716.

Lauderdale, Benjamin E., and Tom S. Clark. “The Supreme Court’s many median justices.” American political science review 106, no. 4 (2012): 847-866.

Beim, Deborah, Tom S. Clark, and Benjamin E. Lauderdale. “Republican-majority appellate panels increase execution rates for capital defendants.” The Journal of Politics 83, no. 3 (2021): 1163-1167.

Spirig, Judith. “When issue salience affects adjudication: evidence from Swiss asylum appeal decisions.” American Journal of Political Science 67, no. 1 (2023): 55-70.