Political Appointments and Outcomes in Federal District Courts
Citations Over TimeTop 10% of 2021 papers
Abstract
Using an original data set of around 70,000 civil rights cases heard by nearly 200 judges, we study the effect of presidential appointments to federal district courts. We provide the first causal estimates of whether lawsuits end differently depending on their assignment to either a Democratic or a Republican appointed judge. We show Republican appointees cause fewer settlements and more dismissals, favoring defendants by around 5 percentage points. We estimate a similarly sized effect for a sample of civil rights appeals heard in the Ninth Circuit, raising questions about the conventional wisdom that politics matters more at higher levels of the judicial hierarchy. We also find that the effect in district courts has increased over time. For cases filed during the Obama presidency, Republican appointees caused pro-defendant outcomes in 7.4% more cases than Democratic appointees. Our results suggest that district courts are an important—although neglected—subject of research for political scientists.
Related Papers
- → Passages to the Presidency: From Campaigning to Governing(1999)8 cited
- → The Paradox of Clinton Winning and the Presidency Losing(1999)5 cited
- LibGuides: The United States Government: The Presidency: Books on the Presidency in the HMCPL Catalog(2016)
- → The determinants and coordination of the message conveyed through the media by the Polish presidency of the Council of the European Union in 2011 – a political science approach(2013)