As the Latino population in the United States grows, it is increasingly important to understand how the unique experience of Latino judges translates into legal decisions. This experience has included, until recently, a bipartisan prioritization to appoint Latinos to the federal judiciary. For the first time, we analyze the judicial decision-making of Latino judges with enough observations to provide robust results. We find that the differences in priorities between the two parties have typically meant more conservative Latino judges on the bench. Using the Carp-Manning U.S. District Court Case Database, we analyze the decisions of Latino judges to determine policy areas where they diverge from their non-Latino counterparts. We find strong evidence that, under certain partisan, ideological, and policy-specific conditions, Latino judges decide differently than non-Latino judges.
AbrajanoM.AlvarezR. M. (2010). New faces, new voices: The Hispanic electorate in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
AlvarezR. M.BedollaL. G. (2003). The foundations of Latino voter partisanship: Evidence from the 2000 election. The Journal of Politics, 65, 31-49.
3.
AshenfelterO.EisenbergT.SchwabS. J. (1995). Politics and the judiciary: The influence of judicial background on case outcomes. The Journal of Legal Studies, 24, 257-281.
BadasA.StaufferK. E. (2018). Someone like me: Descriptive representation and support for Supreme Court nominees. Political Research Quarterly, 71, 127-142.
6.
BejaranoC. E. (2013). The Latino gender gap in US politics. New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
BellL. C. (2002). Warring factions: Interest groups, money, and the new politics of Senate confirmation. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
8.
BinderS. A.MaltzmanF. (2009). Advice and dissent: The struggle to shape the federal judiciary. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
9.
BolksS. M.EvansD.PolinardJ. L.WrinkleR. D. (2000). Core beliefs and abortion attitudes: A look at Latinos. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 253-261.
BoydC. L. (2016). Representation on the courts? The effects of trial judges’ sex and race. Political Research Quarterly, 69, 788-799.
12.
BrennerS.SpaethH. J. (1988). Majority opinion assignments and the maintenance of the original coalition on the Warren Court. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 72-81.
13.
BudziakJ. (2016). Promotion, social identity, and decision making in the United States courts of appeals. Journal of Law and Courts, 4, 267-290.
14.
CasellasJ. P. (2010). Latino representation in state houses and congress. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
ChemerinskyE. (2002). Ideology and the selection of federal judges. UC Davis Law Review, 36, 619-631.
16.
ChewP. K.KelleyR. E. (2012). The realism of race in judicial decision making: An empirical analysis of plaintiffs’ race and judges’ race. Harvard Journal on Racial & Ethnic Justice, 28, 91.
17.
CisnerosA. S. (2017). Latino identity and political attitudes: Why are Latinos not Republican?Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
18.
CohenA.YangC. (2018). Judicial politics and sentencing decisions (No. w24615). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
19.
CollinsT.MoyerL. (2008). Gender, race, and intersectionality on the federal appellate bench. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 219-227.
DaytonC. M. (1992). Logistic regression analysis. Stat, 474-574.
22.
EpsteinL.SegalJ. A. (2005). Advice and consent: The politics of judicial appointments. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
23.
EspinoR.LealD. L.MeierK. J. (Eds.). (2008). Latino politics: Identity, mobilization, and representation. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
24.
FarhangS.WawroG. (2004). Institutional dynamics on the US court of appeals: Minority representation under panel decision making. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 20, 299-330.
25.
Fjc.gov. (2018). Biographical directory of article III federal judges, 1789-present. Federal Judicial Center. Retrieved from https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges
26.
FragaL. R.LealD. L. (2004). Playing the “Latino card”: Race, ethnicity, and national party politics. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 1, 297-317.
27.
GilesM. W.HettingerV. A.PeppersT. (2001). Picking federal judges: A note on policy and partisan selection agendas. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 623-641.
28.
GillmanH. (2001). What’s law got to do with it? Judicial behavioralists test the “legal model” of judicial decision making. Law & Social Inquiry, 26, 465-504.
29.
GoelzhauserG. (2011). Diversifying state supreme courts. Law & Society Review, 45, 761-781.
30.
GoldmanS. (1975). Voting behavior on the United States courts of appeals revisited. American Political Science Review, 69, 491-506.
31.
GrossmanG.Gazal-AyalO.PimentelS. D.WeinsteinJ. M. (2016). Descriptive representation and judicial outcomes in multiethnic societies. American Journal of Political Science, 60, 44-69.
32.
HaireS. B.MoyerL. P. (2015). Diversity matters: Judicial policy making in the U.S. courts of appeals. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
33.
HanmerM. J.KalkanK. O. (2013). Behind the curve: Clarifying the best approach to calculating predicted probabilities and marginal effects from limited dependent variable models. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 263-277.
34.
HarrisA. P.SenM. (2019). Bias and judging. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 241-259. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051617-090650
35.
HerrickR. (2016). Minorities and representation in American politics. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
KastellecJ. P. (2013). Racial diversity and judicial influence on appellate courts. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 167-183.
38.
KimP. T.SchlangerM.BoydC. L.MartinA. D. (2009). How should we study district judge decision-making. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 29, 83-112.
39.
KleinD. E.HumeR. J. (2003). Fear of reversal as an explanation of lower court compliance. Law & Society Review, 37, 579-581.
40.
KritzerH. M. (1978). Political correlates of the behavior of federal district judges: A “best case” analysis. The Journal of Politics, 40, 25-58.
41.
KritzerH. M. (1999). The professions are dead, long live the professions: Legal practice in a postprofessional world. Law & Society Review, 33, 713-759.
42.
KritzerH. M.RichardsM. J. (2005). The influence of law in the Supreme Court’s search-and-seizure jurisprudence. American Politics Research, 33, 33-55.
43.
KulikC. T.PerryE. L.PepperM. B. (2003). Here comes the judge: The influence of judge personal characteristics on federal sexual harassment case outcomes. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 69-86.
44.
LealD. L. (2007). Latino public opinion: Does it exist? In MeierK.EspinoR. (Eds.), Latino politics: Identity, mobilization, and representation (pp. 27-43). Virginia, US: University of Virginia Press.
45.
LealD. L.Martinez-EbersV.MeierK. J. (2004). The politics of Latino education: The biases of at-large elections. Journal of Politics, 66, 1224-1244.
MerrittD. J.BrudneyJ. J. (2001). Stalking secret law: What predicts publication in the United States courts of appeals. Vanderbilt Law Review, 54, 69-122.
48.
MohamedH. S. (2017). The new Americans? Immigration, protest, and the politics of Latino identity. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
49.
MorinJ. L. (2014). The voting behavior of minority judges in the U.S. courts of appeals: Does the race of the claimant matter?American Politics Research, 42, 34-64.
50.
MoyerL. P.HaireS. B. (2015). Trailblazers and those that followed: Personal experiences, gender, and judicial empathy. Law & Society Review, 49, 665-689.
51.
MustardD. B. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: Evidence from the US federal courts. The Journal of Law and Economics, 44, 285-314.
52.
NagelS. S. (1974). Multiple correlation of judicial backgrounds and decisions. Florida State University Law Review, 2, 258-280.
53.
PaskoL. (2002). Villain or victim: Regional variation and ethnic disparity in federal drug offense sentencing. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13, 307-328.
PinelloD. R. (1999). Linking party to judicial ideology in American courts: A meta-analysis. The Justice System Journal, 20, 219-254.
56.
RichardsM. J.KritzerH. M. (2002). Jurisprudential regimes in Supreme Court decision making. American Political Science Review, 96, 305-320.
57.
RouseS. M. (2013). Latinos in the legislative process: Interests and influence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
58.
RowlandC. K.CarpR. A. (1996). Politics and judgment in federal district courts. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
59.
SanchezG. R.MasuokaN. (2010). Brown-utility heuristic? The presence and contributing factors of Latino linked fate. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32, 519-531.
60.
SchauerF. (1999). Incentives, reputation, and the inglorious determinants of judicial behavior. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 68, 615-636.
61.
SchererN. (2004). Blacks on the bench. Political Science Quarterly, 119, 655-675.
62.
SchererN. (2005). Scoring points: Politicians, activists, and the lower federal court appointment process. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
63.
SchererN. (2011). Diversifying the federal bench: Is universal legitimacy for the US justice system possible. Northwestern University Law Review, 105, 587-634.
64.
SchererN.CurryB. (2010). Does descriptive race representation enhance institutional legitimacy? The case of the US courts. The Journal of Politics, 72, 90-104.
65.
SegalJ. A.SpaethH. J. (1996). The influence of stare decisis on the votes of United States Supreme Court justices. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 971-1003.
66.
SegalJ. A.SpaethH. J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
67.
SheehanR. S.MishlerW.SongerD. R. (1992). Ideology, status, and the differential success of direct parties before the Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 86, 464-471.
68.
SongerD. R. (1982). Consensual and nonconsensual decisions in unanimous opinions of the United States courts of appeals. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 225-239.
69.
SongerD. R.JohnsonS. W. (2007). Judicial decision making in the Supreme Court of Canada: Updating the personal attribute model. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, 40, 911-934.
70.
SteigerwaltA. (2010). Battle over the bench: Senators, interest groups, and lower court confirmations. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
71.
SwensonK. (2004). Federal district court judges and the decision to publish. Justice System Journal, 25, 121-142.
72.
TateC. N. (1981). Personal attribute models of the voting behavior of US Supreme Court justices: Liberalism in civil liberties and economics decisions, 1946-1978. American Political Science Review, 75, 355-367.
73.
TateC. N.SittiwongP. (1989). Decision making in the Canadian Supreme Court: Extending the personal attributes model across nations. The Journal of Politics, 51, 900-916.
74.
TiedeL.CarpR.ManningK. L. (2010). Judicial attributes and sentencing-deviation cases: Do sex, race, and politics matter?Justice System Journal, 31, 249-272.
75.
UhlanerC. J.GarciaF. C. (2002). Latino public opinion. In NorranderB.WilcoxC. (Eds.), Understanding public opinion (2nd ed., pp. 77-101). Washington DC, US: Congressional Quarterly Press.
76.
UlmerS. S. (1973). Social background as an indicator to the votes of Supreme Court justices in criminal cases: 1947-1956 terms. American Journal of Political Science, 17, 622-630.
77.
UlmerS. S. (1986). Are social background models time-bound?American Political Science Review, 80, 957-967.
WalkerT. G.BarrowD. J. (1985). The diversification of the federal bench: Policy and process ramifications. The Journal of Politics, 47, 596-617.
80.
WilsonE. R. (2018). Stuck behind kitchen doors? Assessing the work prospects of latter-generation Latino workers in a Los Angeles restaurant. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41, 210-228.
81.
WilsonW. C. (2010). Descriptive representation and Latino interest bill sponsorship in congress. Social Science Quarterly, 91, 1043-1062.
WongJ. S. (2018). Immigrants, evangelicals, and politics in an era of demographic change. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
84.
ZornC.BowieJ. B. (2010). Ideological influences on decision making in the federal judicial hierarchy: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Politics, 72, 1212-1221.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
