The focus of this analysis is whether a strategic perspective provides a useful approach that enhances an understanding of broad patterns of judicial decision making on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The authors examine whether it is reasonable in the majority of cases for appeals court judges to modify their behavior when necessary to avoid reversal by the Supreme Court. This assessment utilizes statistical analyses and interviews from twenty-eight judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Based on a three-part argument, the authors conclude that a strategic perspective is not helpful in understanding the decision calculus of appeals court judges.
Aldrich, John H., and Forrest Nelson.1984. Linear probability, logit and probit models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage .
2.
Baum, Lawrence.1997. The puzzle of judicial behavior. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
3.
---. 2006. Judges and their audience: A perspective on judicial behavior . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
Benesh, Sara C., and Wendy L. Martinek .2002. State supreme court decision making in confessions cases. Justice System Journal23 (1): 109-33.
5.
Caldeira, Gregory, and John R. Wright .1988. Organized interests and agenda setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review82: 1109-27.
6.
Cross, Frank B.2007. Decision making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press .
7.
Cross, Frank B., and Emerson H. Tiller .1998. Judicial partisanship and obedience to legal doctrine: Whistleblowing on the federal courts of appeals . Yale Law Journal107 (7): 2155-76.
8.
Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight.1998. The choices justices make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
9.
---. 2000. Toward a strategic revolution in judicial politics: A look back, a look ahead. Political Research Quarterly53:625-61.
10.
Ferejohn, John, and Barry Weingast.1992. A positive theory of statutory interpretation . International Review of Law and Economics12 (June): 263-79.
11.
Gely, Rafael, and Pablo T. Spiller .1990. A rational choice theory of Supreme Court statutory decisions: With applications to the "State Farm" and "Grove City" cases. Journal of Law, Economics and Organizations6:263-300.
12.
Giles, Michael W., Thomas G. Walker, and Christopher Zorn .2006. Setting a judicial agenda: The decision to grant en banc review in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Journal of Politics68: 852-66.
13.
Goldman, Sheldon.1969. Backgrounds, attitudes and the voting behavior of judges: A comment on Joel Grossman's social backgrounds and judicial decisions . Journal of Politics31:214-22.
14.
Hansford, Thomas G.2004. Information provision, organizational constraints, and the decision to submit an amicus curiae brief in a U.S. Supreme Court case . Political Research Quarterly57: 219-30.
15.
Hettinger, Virginia A., Stefanie A. Lindquist, and Wendy L. Martinek .2004. Comparing attitudinal and strategic accounts of dissenting behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. American Journal of Political Science48:123-37.
16.
Howard, J. Woodford.1981. Courts of appeals in the federal judicial system: A study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
Klein, David E.2002. Making law in the United States Courts of Appeals . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Klein, David E., and Robert J. Hume.2003. Fear of reversal as an explanation of lower court compliance. Law and Society Review37 (3): 579-606.
19.
Long, J. Scott.1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
20.
Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck.2000. Crafting law on the Supreme Court: The collegial game. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Marks, Brian A.1989. A model of judicial influence on congressional policymaking: Grove City College v. Bell. PhD diss., Washington University .
22.
McNollgast.1995. Politics and the courts: A positive theory of judicial doctrine and the rule of law. Southern California Law Review68:1631-83.
23.
Murphy, Walter F.1964. Elements of judicial strategy. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
24.
Perry, H.W., Jr.1991. Deciding to decide: Agenda setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
Pritchett, C. Herman.1948. The Roosevelt court. New York : MacMillan.
26.
Schubert, Glendon.1958. The study of judicial decision-making as an aspect of political behavior. American Political Science Review52:1007-25.
27.
---. 1962. Policy without law: An extension of the certiorari game . Stanford Law Review14:284-327.
28.
---. 1965. The judicial mind. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
29.
Segal, Jeffrey A.1997. Separation-of-powers games in positive theory of Congress and courts. American Political Science Review91:28-44.
30.
Smith, Joseph L., and Emerson H. Tiller .1997. The strategy of judging: Evidence from administrative law. Working paper, Center for Legal and Regulatory Studies, Graduate School of Business, University of Texas .
31.
Songer, Donald R., Martha Humphries Ginn, and Tammy A. Sarver .2003. Do judges follow the law when there is no fear of reversal?Justice System Journal24:137-62.
32.
Songer, Donald R., Jeffrey A. Segal, and Charles M. Cameron .1994. The hierarchy of justice: Testing a principal-agent model of Supreme Court-circuit court interactions . American Journal of Political Science38:673-96.
33.
Spiller, Pablo T., and Rafael Gely.1992. Congressional control or judicial independence: The determinants of U.S. Supreme Court labor-relations decision, 1949-1988 . RAND Journal of Economics23 (Winter): 463-92.
34.
Spriggs, James F., II, Forrest Maltzman, and Paul J. Wahlbeck.1999. Bargaining on the U.S. Supreme Court: Justices' responses to majority opinion drafts. Journal of Politics61: 485-506.
35.
Tate, C. Neal.1981. Personal attribute models of the voting behavior of U.S. Supreme Court justices: Liberalism in civil liberties and economic decisions, 1946-78. American Political Science Review75:355-67.
36.
Van Winkle, Steven.1997. Dissenting as a signal: Evidence from the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 27.
37.
Wahlbeck, Paul J., James F. Spriggs, and Forest Maltzman .1998. Marshalling the Court: Bargaining and accommodation on the United States Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science42: 294-315.
38.
Zorn, Christopher.2002. U.S. government litigation strategies in the federal appellate courts. Political Research Quarterly55: 145-66.
