Judicial Hierarchy in State Courts: Race, Gender, Politics & Judicial Process

• In Event: Courts in Context: Examining Judicial and Legal Hierarchies

Abstract

In this research I seek to better understand how cases move through the judicial hierarchy in U.S. state courts. Using two original datasets comprising trial and appeals, I investigate the factors that cause cases to move from trial to appeal and then reversal across different institutional arrangements. Previous research in this area is seriously limited by a lack of data availability and theory, making my research project pioneering in terms of both its empirical and theoretical contributions. This paper is part of a larger book project, which seeks to make three contributions to the academic study of courts: First, the project endeavors to bridge the gap between political science and legal academic scholarship on courts and judicial process. Political science law scholars largely focus on appellate court proceedings and predominately rely on theories that predict how judges will evaluate the cases before them. Legal academics, on the other hand, tend to emphasize how attorney and client strategies affect trial court outputs. Due to this divide, scholars typically study either appeals courts or trial courts in isolation from each other (for a few notable exceptions, see, Boyd 2015; Epstein, Landes and Posner 2013; Randazzo 2008). Consequently, research connecting appellate courts to the trial courts they review remains extremely limited and underdeveloped theoretically. Second, I endeavor to make a theoretical contribution to the study of law and courts by creating and testing new theories and hypotheses derived from law and political science research. Synthesizing the two bodies of scholarship is particularly essential if researchers want to understand how and why cases move from one stage of litigation to the next. Creating a theory that encompasses both trial and appeals courts is essential for researchers and policymakers interested in courts’ ability to administer justice efficiently and effectively. Third, this scholarship will make a significant empirical contribution to both disciplines, with real-world implications. To date no comprehensive database of trials and appeals exists. The research will draw on a dataset of trial court verdicts and a second dataset for those cases that were appealed. This data will allow me to test a number of under-studied research questions. For example, legal scholars posit that attorneys and their clients make strategic calculations about which cases to bring to the courts (Priest and Klein 1984). On the other hand, political science scholars maintain that judges’ liberal or conservative ideologies play critical roles in shaping appeals court justices’ behavior (Brace, Langer, and Hall 2000; Schubert 1965; Segal and Spaeth 2002; Windett, Harden, and Hall 2015). Political scientists further argue that appeals court justices are in turn able to send signals to lower courts expressing those preferences (Benesh and Reddick 2002; Haire, Lindquist, and Songer 2003; Kastellec 2011). Taking the two perspective together, suggests the hypothesis that strategic attorneys also consider judicial ideology and higher court preferences when choosing cases for appeal. Additionally, my study will leverage the variation across states to ascertain whether partisan politics and state retention mechanisms result in greater numbers of appeals for certain judges. Are Republican appeals court judges more likely to overturn a verdict rendered by a Democratic trial court judge? Although existing research indicates that judges’ race and gender might impact their decision-making on the bench (Boyd 2016; Collins and Moyer 2008; Haire and Moyer 2015), the extent to which being a minority encourages appeals or results in reversals remains under-studied. This chapter will specifically explore the extent to which trial judges who are minorities on the bench (in terms of gender, race, and/or partisanship) have cases they presided over reviewed and reversed more. This research makes important contributions to the study of state trial and appellate courts and scholarship concerned with gender, race, and the judiciary.

Author

• Tao L. Dumas, The College of New Jersey