Judges sitting on three-judge panels in the U.S. Courts of Appeals make decisions under the shadow of potential review by supervising courts, the full circuit sitting en banc and the Supreme Court. Review is more likely for published decisions, particularly when a dissent is present. Unpublished decisions do not have binding precedential status. These factors create the potential for judges to be strategic in deciding whether to publish a decision or write a dissent. We develop a formal model of decision aggregation that takes the possibility of negotiating a tradeoff between the ideological location of a rule and its precedential value into account. Implications of our model are tested empirically using an original data set of search and seizure cases. Our model and results indicate that preferences within the panel and judicial hierarchy coupled with discretionary review influence judges’ decisions regarding publication and dissent, and that these choices have important consequences.
Administrative Office of the United States Courts. (2011). Judicial business of the United States Courts. Available from http://www.uscourts.gov/
2.
Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d, 898, 899 (8th Cir. 2000).
3.
ArnoldR. S. (1999). Unpublished opinions: A comment. Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, 1, 219-427.
4.
BeimD.HirschA. V.KastellecJ. P. (2014). Whistleblowing and compliance in the judicial hierarchy. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 904-918.
5.
BeneshS. C. (2002). The U.S. Court of Appeals and the law of confessions: Perspectives on the hierarchy of justice. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly.
6.
BlackR. C.OwensR. J. (2009). Agenda setting in the Supreme Court: The collision of policy and jurisprudence. The Journal of Politics, 71, 1062-1075.
7.
BowieJ. B.SongerD. R. (2008). Assessing the applicability of strategic theory to explain decision making on the courts of appeals. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 393-407.
8.
BowieJ. B.SongerD. R.SzmerJ. (2014). View from the bench and chambers. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
9.
BoydC. L. (2013). She’ll settle it?Journal of Law and Courts, 1, 193-219.
10.
BoydC. L.EpsteinL.MartinA. D. (2010). Untangling the causal effects of sex on judging. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 389-411.
11.
Bueno de MesquitaE.StephensonM. (2003). Informative precedent and intrajudicial communication. American Political Science Review, 96, 755-766.
12.
CaldeiraG. A.WrightJ. R.ZornC. J. W. (1999). Sophisticated voting and gate-keeping in the Supreme Court. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 15, 549-572.
13.
CameronC. M.SegalJ. A.SongerD. (2000). Strategic auditing in a political hierarchy: An informational model of the Supreme Court’s certiorari decisions. American Political Science Review, 94, 101-116.
14.
CarrubbaC.FriedmanB.MartinA. D.VanbergG. (2011). Who controls the content of Supreme Court opinions?American Journal of Political Science, 56, 400-412.
15.
ClevelandD. R. (2009). Draining the morass: Ending the jurisprudentially unsound unpublication system. Marquette Law Review, 92, 685-889.
16.
CoyleA. (2003). A modest reform: The new Rule 32.1 permitting citation to unpublished opinions in the federal courts of appeals. Fordham Law Review, 72, 2471-2501.
17.
CrossF. B.TillerE. H. (1998). Judicial partisanship and obedience to legal doctrine: Whistleblowing on the federal courts of appeals. The Yale Law Journal, 107, 2155-2176.
18.
EpsteinL.LandesW. M.PosnerR. A. (2011). Why (and when) judges dissent: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Legal Analysis, 3, 101-137.
19.
EpsteinL.MartinA. D.SegalJ. A.WesterlandC. (2007). The judicial common space. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 23, 303-325.
20.
FarhangS.WawroG. J. (2004). Institutional dynamics on the U.S. Court of Appeals: Minority representation under panel decision making. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 20, 299-330.
21.
Federal court of appeals manual, local rules.(2012). Eagan, MN: Thomson West.
22.
FischmanJ. B. (2015). Interpreting circuit court voting patterns: A social interactions framework. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 31, 808-842.
23.
FriedmanB.MartinA. D. (2011). Looking for law in all the wrong places. In GeyhC. (Ed.), What’s law got to do with it? What judges do, why they do it, and what’s at stake (pp. 143-172). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
GailmardS.PattyJ. (2013). Stovepiping. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 25, 388-411.
25.
GilesM. W.HettingerV. A.PeppersT. (2001). Picking federal judges: A note on policy and partisan selection agendas. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 623-641.
26.
GilesM. W.WalkerT. G.ZornC. (2006). Setting a judicial agenda: The decision to grant en banc review in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The Journal of Politics, 68, 852-866.
27.
GinsburgR. (1985). The obligation to reason why. University of Florida Law Review, 37, 205-224.
28.
HaireS. B.LindquistS. A.SongerD. R. (2003). Appellate court supervision in the federal judiciary: A hierarchical perspective. Law & Society Review, 37, 143-168.
29.
HettingerV. A.LindquistS. A.MartinekW. L. (2004). Comparing attitudinal and strategic accounts of dissenting behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 123-137.
30.
HettingerV. A.LindquistS. A.MartinekW. L. (2007). Judging on a collegial court: Influences on federal appellate decision making. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
31.
HinkleR. K. (2015). Legal constraint in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The Journal of Politics, 77, 721-735.
32.
KastellecJ. P. (2007). Panel composition and judicial compliance on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 23, 421-441.
33.
KastellecJ. P. (2011). Hierarchical and collegial politics on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The Journal of Politics, 73, 345-361.
34.
KeeleD. M.MalmsheimerR. W.FloydD. W.ZhangL. (2009). An analysis of ideological effects in published versus unpublished judicial opinions. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6, 213-969.
35.
KimP. T. (2008). Deliberation and strategy on the United States Courts of Appeals: An empirical exploration of panel effects. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 157, 1319-1381.
36.
KleinD.HumeR. (2003). Fear of reversal as an explanation of lower court compliance. Law & Society Review, 37, 579-606.
37.
KornhauserL. (1994). Adjudication by a resource-constrained team: Hierarchy and precedent in a judicial system. Southern California Law Review, 68, 1605-1629.
38.
LawD. S. (2005). Judicial ideology and the decision to publish: Voting and publication pattern in Ninth Circuit asylum cases. Judicature, 89, 212-219.
39.
LaxJ. R.CameronC. M. (2007). Bargaining and opinion assignment on the U.S. Supreme Court. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 23, 276-302.
40.
LinkousD. J.TillerE. H. (2009). Panel effects, whistleblowing theory, and the role of legal doctrine. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 158(1), 83-92.
MartinA. D.QuinnK. M.EpsteinL. (2004). The median justice on the United States Supreme Court. North Carolina Law Review, 83, 1275-1322.
43.
McCubbinsM. D.SchwartzT. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 165-179.
44.
McNollgast. (1994). Politics and the courts: A positive theory of judicial doctrine and the rule of law. Southern California Law Review, 68, 1631-1684.
45.
MerrittD. J.BrudneyJ. J. (2001). Stalking secret law: What predicts publication in the United States Courts of Appeals. Vanderbilt Law Review, 54, 69-122.
46.
OlsonS. M. (1992). Studying federal district courts through published cases: A research note. Justice System Journal, 15, 782-800.
47.
PerryH. (1991). Deciding to decide: Agenda setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48.
Plumely v. Austin, 135 S. Ct. 828, 831 (2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting).
49.
PooleK. T. (1998). Recovering a basic space from a set of issue scales. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 954-993.
50.
PriestG. L.KleinB. (1984). The selection of disputes for litigation. Journal of Legal Studies, 13, 1-55.
51.
ReaganR. T. (2007). Citing unpublished federal appellate opinions issued before 2007. Federal Judicial Center. Available from http://www.fjc.gov/
52.
RobelL. K. (1989). The myth of the disposable opinion: Unpublished opinions and government litigants in the United States Courts of Appeals. Michigan Law Review, 87, 940-962.
53.
SchiltzP. J. (2005). Much ado about little: Explaining the sturm und drang over the citation of unpublished opinions. Washington and Lee Law Review, 62, 1429-1490.
54.
SerfassM. M.CranfordJ. L. (2001). Federal and state court rules governing publication and citation of opinions. Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, 3, 251-286.
55.
Smith v. United States, 502 U.S. 1017, 1020 (1991) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
56.
SongerD. R. (1989). Criteria for publication of opinions in the U.S. Courts of Appeals: Formal rules versus empirical reality. Judicature, 73, 307-313.
57.
StatonJ. K. (2006). Constitutional review and the selective promotion of case results. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 98-112.
58.
SunsteinC. R. (1993). On analogical reasoning. Harvard Law Review, 106, 741-791.
59.
SunsteinC. R.SchkadeD.EllmanL. M. (2004). Ideological voting on federal courts of appeals: A preliminary investigation. Virginia Law Review, 90, 301-354.
60.
SunsteinC. R.VermueleA. (2014). The law of “not now”: When agencies defer decisions. The Georgetown Law Review, 103, 157-195.
61.
SwensonK. (2004). Federal district court judges and the decision to publish. Justice System Journal, 25, 121-142.
62.
TingM. M. (2008). Whistleblowing. American Political Science Review, 102, 249-267.
63.
WaldP. M. (1985). The changing course: The use of precedent in the District of Columbia Circuit. Cleveland State Law Review, 34, 477-518.
64.
WaldP. M. (1995). The rhetoric of results and the results of rhetoric: Judicial writings. University of Chicago Law Review, 62, 1371-1420.
65.
WasbyS. L. (2001). Unpublished decisions in the federal courts of appeals: Making the decision to publish. Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, 3, 325-342.
