Do oral arguments influence state supreme courts, and if so, how? Focusing on a “thinking-fast” framework, this study analyzes 2014–2021 New York Court of Appeals oral arguments to test whether non-traditional factors such as expressed emotion can shape decisions. Empirical analysis drawn from textual data shows that oral arguments can explain decision-making, and that justices’ emotion during arguments likely plays a role. The findings challenge normatively rational models of judicial behavior by underscoring affective, real-time influences and highlight oral arguments as a consequential stage in subnational adjudication. This is the first evidence of their meaningful role in state supreme courts.

A large empirical literature examines how judges’ traits affect how cases get resolved. This literature has led many to conclude that judges matter for case outcomes. But how much do they matter? Existing empirical findings understate the true extent of judicial influence over case outcomes since standard estimation techniques hide some disagreement among judges. We devise a machine learning method to reveal additional sources of disagreement. Applying this method to the Ninth Circuit, we estimate that at least 38% of cases could be decided differently based solely on the panel they were assigned to.

We argue affiliation with an American conservative legal movement key player, the Federalist Society (FedSoc), provides a low-cost, high-information cue to senators voting on nominees. We investigate how FedSoc affiliation shapes senator voting behavior on judicial nominations. Using a novel dataset of 35,602 roll call votes on all federal judicial nominations (1991–2020), we find Federalist Society affiliation dramatically impacts the likelihood of receiving a senator’s vote with Democrats less likely to vote for Federalist Society-affiliated nominees than Republicans across the federal judiciary. Senator ideology matters with more ideologically extreme Republicans – and more moderate Democrats – more likely to vote for FedSoc-affiliated nominees. Relatedly, Republican senators – regardless of their own affiliation with the group – reveal strong support for FedSoc affiliates. Taken together, we show nominee affiliation with the Federalist Society is a crucial cue when senators vote on judicial nominees.1

As expectations for research output evolve, tenure portfolios serve as valuable records of how a field gauges impact. We analyze the records of 184 Law and Courts faculty at PhD-granting institutions and find that the median portfolio has grown from seven to ten peer-reviewed articles, that scholars publish in a wider variety of outlets, and that coauthorship rates have doubled over our four-decade time period. We also note patterns of gendered collaboration and private-institution advantages. These trends suggest shifting tenure expectations, complicate traditional metrics of impact, and underscore the need to initiate data-driven conversations about scholarly impact in an increasingly multidisciplinary field.

Explorations of ideology retain special significance in contemporary studies of judicial politics. While some existing methodologies draw on voting patterns and coalition alignments to map a jurist’s latent features, many are otherwise reliant on supplemental proxies – often directly from adjacent actors or via assessments from various prognosticators. We propose an alternative that not only leverages observable judicial behavior, but does so through jurists’ articulations on the law. In particular, we adapt a hierarchical factor model to demonstrate how latent ideological preferences emerge through the written text of opinions. Relying on opinion content from Justices of the Supreme Court, we observe a discernible correlation between linguistic choices and latent expressions of ideology irrespective of known preferences or voting patterns. Testing our method against Martin-Quinn, we find our approach strongly correlates with this validated and commonly used measure of judicial ideology. We conclude by discussing the intuitive power of text as a feature of ideology, as well as how this process can extend to judicial actors and institutions beyond the Supreme Court.

An often-used normative argument for increasing judicial diversity is that it will enhance public confidence in courts. This paper tests competing perspectives about whether the descriptive representation of women in the federal judiciary will improve institutional trust, using a nationally representative survey experiment. The findings suggest that, in the post-Dobbs era, descriptive representation for gender on low visibility courts yields a positive effect on institutional trust, but that the magnitude of the effect is quite small, time limited, and restricted to Democrats and to those who already have higher levels of trust.

A decades-long debate has sought to determine whether judicial elections are detrimental to the impartiality of judges and public support for state court systems. We contribute to that discussion by assessing whether elections work to hold errant judges accountable. We use a novel dataset of judicial scandal, including newspaper reports of misconduct against elected state supreme court justices. Our data examines the effect of scandal from 2000–2023 to determine whether controversy affects voter support for incumbents. We find voters pay attention to the harmful effects of scandal on judiciaries and that impacted incumbents experience diminished support, relative to other incumbents.

Detained individuals subject to deportation have the right to a bond hearing in immigration court similar to that of detained individuals accused of a crime. Unlike criminal law, immigration law places the burden of proof on detained people rather than the government. We analyze the impact of a federal court decision that shifted the burden of proof to the government via a synthetic control study and a qualitative research design grounded in a new theoretical analysis of immigration courts that focuses on judicial decision-making and prosecutorial discretion. The evidence suggests significant limits on the federal courts’ ability to change bond outcomes merely through changing the burden of proof.