Developing Consistent Doctrine

• In Event: Poster Session: Public Administration & Law and Courts
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Law and Courts: Issues in Judicial Politics and Judicial Behavior

Abstract

Why do courts issue opinions that lead to conflicting rules? Deciding a case contrary to past decisions could be explained as current judges following their own preferences rather than pronouncements of past judges. When doing so, judges often alter pronounced doctrine to have farther reaching effects, either from lower court compliance with the new opinion or from outside actors' reliance on new judicial doctrine. However, legal scholars identify some issue areas where the rules developed by judges' opinions are internally inconsistent, which could undercut the effectiveness of judicial policies. I explain this phenomenon by utilizing a formal model to show that appellate courts must sometimes sacrifice logical consistency in judicial policy pronouncements if they want to reduce lower courts' discretion. Since in many contexts, more stringent appellate review undercuts courts' ability to justify their rulings coherently, these results also highlight normative concerns with important implications for the fair administration of justice, the development and consistency of legal doctrine, and courts' role in protecting civil liberties.

Author

• JBrandon Duck-Mayr, Washington University in St. Louis