Why does the British government increasingly lose immigration cases in court? More broadly, what can explain the changing behaviour of appeal court judges? It is because government powers to manage immigration, delegated by Parliament, are increasingly couched in indeterminate language. Indeterminacy in legislation not only allows for executive discretion but also encourages litigation. Parliament has therefore provided the cause of action, and judges are not being ‘activist’. This argument revitalises, with nuance, the legal model of judicial behaviour. New evidence supports the claim, with discourse analysis of all 1233 sections of immigration legislation enacted from 1905 to 2016 showing an increase in indeterminacy. Logit regression modelling of 252 immigration appeal cases between 1970 and 2012 shows that changes to language and the administration of the law can explain the outcome in 73% of cases.
Blom-CooperLDicksonBDrewryG (2009) The Judicial House of Lords. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
ButtPCastleR (2007) Modern Legal Drafting: A Guide to Using Clearer Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
CarrubbaCJGabelMHanklaC (2008) Judicial behavior under political constraints: Evidence from the European Court of Justice. American Political Science Review102(4): 435–452.
5.
CharrowRPCharrowVR (1979) Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review79(7): 1306–1374.
6.
ClaytonCGillmanH (1999) Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
7.
CrystalDDavyD (1969) Investigating English Style. Harlow: Longmans.
8.
DahlRA (1957) Decision-making in a democracy: The Supreme court as a national policy-maker. Journal of Public Law6: 279–295.
DyevreA (2010) Unifying the field of comparative judicial politics: Towards a general theory of judicial behaviour. European Political Science Review2(2): 297–327.
11.
EdwardsHT (1984) Public misperceptions concerning the politics of judging: Dispelling some myths about the DC Circuit. University of Colorado Law Review4(2): 619–646.
12.
EpsteinLKnightJ (1998) The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
13.
EskridgeWNJrFerejohnJ (1992) Making the deal stick: Enforcing the original constitutional structure of law-making in the modern regulatory state. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization8(1): 165–189.
14.
EvansMMcIntoshWLinJ. (2007) Recounting the courts? Applying automated content analysis to enhance empirical legal research. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies4(4): 1007–1039.
15.
FerejohnJWeingastB (1991) Limitation of statutes: Strategic statutory interpretation. Georgia Law Review80(4): 565–582.
16.
GarrettGKelemanRDSchulzH (1998) The European Court of Justice, national governments, and legal integration in the European Union. International Organization52(1): 149–176.
17.
GibsonJL (1978) ‘Judges’ role orientations, attitudes and decisions: An interactive model. American Political Science Review72(3): 911–924.
18.
HanrettyC (2013) The decisions and ideal points of British Law Lords. British Journal of Political Science43(3): 703–716.
19.
HartHLA (1961) The Concept of the Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
20.
HirschlR (2008) The judicialization of mega-politics and the rise of political courts. Annual Review of Political Science11: 93–118.
21.
HönnigeC (2011) Beyond judicialization: Why we need more comparative research about constitutional courts. European Political Science10: 346–358.
22.
HuberJDShipanCR (2002) Deliberate Discretion? The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
KingdonJ (1995) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Politics, 2nd edn.New York: Harper Collins.
24.
LaverMBenoitKGarryJ (2003) Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review97(2): 311–331.
25.
LeviEH (1948) An introduction to legal reasoning. University of Chicago Law Review15: 501–574.
26.
LindblomCE (1959) The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review19(2): 79–88.
27.
MarchJGOlsenJP (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The Organisational Basis of Politics. New York: The Free Press.
28.
MartinLWVanbergG (2008) A robust procedure for interpreting political text. Political Analysis16: 93–100.
29.
MerrymanJH (1981) On the convergence (and divergence) of the civil law and the common law. Stanford Journal of International Law17: 357–388.
MorrisCW (1946) Signs, Language, and Behaviour. New York: G Braziller.
32.
NorthDWeingastB (1989) Constitutions and commitment: The evolution of institutions governing public choice in seventeenth-century England. The Journal of Economic History49(4): 803–832.
33.
RobertsonD (1998) Judicial Discretion in the House of Lords. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
34.
RooseveltK (2006) The Myth of Judicial Activism: Making Sense of Supreme Court Decisions. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.
35.
SchmidtVA (2008) Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science11: 303–326.
36.
SchubertG (1965) The Judicial Mind. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
37.
SegalJASpaethHJ (2002) The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
SiskGCHeiseMMorrissAP (1998) Charting the influences on the judicial mind: An empirical study of judicial reasoning. New York University Law Review73(5): 1377–1500.
39.
StatonJKVanbergG (2008) The value of vagueness: Delegation, defiance and judicial opinions. American Journal of Political Science52(3): 504–519.
40.
Stone SweetA (2000) Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41.
StrømKMüllerWCBergmanT (2003) Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42.
TateCNVallinderT (1995) The Global Expansion of Judicial Power. New York: New York University Press.
43.
WilliamsM (2016) Indeterminate sovereignty and the rule of law. British Politics11(1): 26–48.
44.
WilliamsM (2017) The grammar of politics: A brief history of legislative language in Britain. Political Quarterly. Epub ahead of print 28February. DOI: 10.1111/1467-923X.12345.
