Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T20:44:31.547Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Appellate Court Supervision in the Federal Judiciary: A Hierarchical Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Susan B. Haire ,
Stefanie A. Lindquist  and
Donald R. Songer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we examine factors that influence appellate supervision in the lower tiers of the federal judicial hierarchy. Drawing on the insights of agency theory, we develop a framework to assess the determinants of circuit panel decisions to affirm or reverse federal district court rulings. Our analysis of U.S. Courts of Appeals' published civil rights decisions over a 29-year period (1971–1999) offers support for several hypothesized relationships. As expected, the outcome of appellate review varied with the level of agreement between the preferences of the circuit (as principal) and the policy position of the trial court (as agent). In addition, we found that circuits were more likely to affirm trial court decisions that were contrary to the preferences of the federal district court judge, suggesting that circuit judges may rely on ideological signals when evaluating appeals before them. We also hypothesized that the monitoring activities of circuits would be influenced by individual circuits' relationship with their principal, the Supreme Court. Consistent with these expectations, panels were more likely to reverse district court rulings that were incongruous with the policy predisposition of the High Court. In addition, as Supreme Court scrutiny of a circuit increased, the likelihood of a circuit panel subsequently reversing a district court also increased. Although further inquiry is necessary to clarify the interpretation of this result, the finding does suggest that district courts are more likely to engage in decision making that deviates from circuit preferences when that circuit faces more intense supervision from the Supreme Court.

Type
Papers of General Interest
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , March 2003 , pp. 143 - 168
Copyright
© 2003 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Banks, Christopher P. (1999) Judicial Politics in the D.C. Circuit Court. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Barrow, Deborah J., Gryski, Gerald S., & Zuk, Gary (1995) “Attributes of United States Appeals Court Judges, 1801–1994,” http://www.ssc.msu.edu/~pls.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (1980) “Responses of Federal District Judges to Courts of Appeals Policies: An Exploration,” 33 Western Political Q. 219–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (1994) “Specialization and Authority Acceptance: The Supreme Court and Lower Federal Courts,” 47 Political Research Q. 693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benesh, Sara C., & Martinek, Wendy L. (2001) “State-Federal Judicial Relations: The Case of State Supreme Court Decision Making in Confession Cases,” paper presented at “Federalism and the Courts: A National Conference.” Athens, GA.Google Scholar
Brehm, John, & Gates, Scott (1997) Working, Shirking, and Sabotage: Bureaucratic Response to a Democratic Public. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brent, James C. (1999) “An Agent and Two Principals: U.S. Court of Appeals Responses to Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” 27 American Politics Q. 236–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Charles M., Segal, Jeffrey A., & Songer, Donald (2000) “Strategic Auditing in a Political Hierarchy: An Informational Model of the Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions,” 94 American Political Science Rev. 101–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canon, Bradley C., & Johnson, Charles A. (1999) Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact 2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffin, Frank M. (1994) On Appeal. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jonathan Matthew (2002) Inside Appellate Courts. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Mark A. (1991) “Explaining Judicial behavior or What's ‘Unconstitutional’ about the Sentencing Commission?,” 7 J. of Law, Economics and Organization 295–313.Google Scholar
Cohen, Mark A. (1992) “The Motives of Judges: Empirical Evidence from Antitrust Sentencing,” 12 International Rev. of Law and Economics 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drahozal, Christopher R. (1998) “Judicial Incentives and the Appeals Process,” 51 Southern Methodist Univ. Law Rev. 469–503.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Knight, Jack (1998) The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
George, Tracey E., & Solimine, Michael E. (2001) “Supreme Court Monitoring of the United States Courts of Appeals En Banc,” 9 Supreme Court Economic Rev. 171–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Justin J., & Atkins, Burton M. (1978) “Designated Judges: How Well Do They Perform,” 61 (8) Judicature 358–70.Google Scholar
Gruhl, John (1980) “The Supreme Court's Impact on the Law of Libel: Compliance by the Lower Federal Courts,” 33 Western Political Q. 518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Melinda, & Brace, Paul (1999) “State Supreme Courts and Their Environments: Avenues to General Theories of Judicial Choice,” in Clayton, Cornell W. & Gillman, Howard, eds., Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hellman, Arthur (1999) “Precedent, Predictability, and Federal Appellate Structure,” 60 Univ. of Pittsburgh Law Rev. 1029–109.Google Scholar
Higgins, Robert S., & Rubin, Paul H. (1980) “Judicial Discretion,” 9 J. of Legal Studies 129–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, J., & Woodford, (1981) Courts of Appeals in the Federal System. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Charles A. (1979) “Lower Court Reactions to Supreme Court Decisions: A Quantitative Examination,” 23 American J. of Political Science 792–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Jack, & Epstein, Lee (1996) “The Norm of Stare Decisis,” 40(4) American J. of Political Science 1018–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landes, William M., & Posner, Richard A. (1979) “Adjudication as a Private Good,” 8 J. of Legal Studies 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, Matthew, & Schwartz, Thomas (1984) “Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms,” 28 American J. of Political Science 165–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry (1984) “The New Economics of Organization,” 28 American J. of Political Science 739–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Jon O. (1992) “A Study of Appellate Reversals,” 58 Brooklyn Law Rev. 629–40.Google Scholar
Newman, Jon O. (1994) “In Banc Practice in the Second Circuit: 1989–1993,” 60 Brooklyn Law Rev. 491–502.Google Scholar
Pacelle, Richard L. Jr., & Larry, Baum (1992) “Supreme Court Authority in the Judiciary: A Study of Remands,” 20 American Politics Q. 169–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peltason, J. W. (1961) Fifty-Eight Lonely Men: Southern Judges and School Desegregation. Urbana, IL: Univ. of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Perry, H. W. Jr., (1991) Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. (1998) “Recovering a Basic Space from a Set of Issue Scales,” 42 American J. of Political Science 954–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramseyer, J. Mark, & Rasmusen, Eric B. (2001) “Why Are Japanese Judges So Conservative in Politically Charged Cases?,” 95 (2) American Political Science Rev. 331–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R., & Vines, K. (1970) The Politics of Federal Courts: Lower Courts in the United States. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Rowland, C. K., & Carp, Robert (1996) Politics and Judgment in Federal District Courts. Topeka, KS: Univ. Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Shavell, Steven (1995) “The Appeals Process as a Means of Error Correction,” 24 J. of Legal Studies 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald (1987) “The Impact of Supreme Court Trends on Economic Policy Making in the U.S. Court of Appeals,” 49 J. of Politics 830–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald (1999) “United States Court of Appeals Judicial Data Base,” http://www.ssc.msu.edu/~pls.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., & Haire, Susan B. (1992) “Integrating Alternative Approaches to the Study of Judicial Voting: Obscenity Cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” 36 American J. of Political Science 963–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Segal, Jeffrey A., & Cameron, Charles M. (1994) “The Hierarchy of Justice: Testing a Principal-Agent Model of Supreme Court-Circuit Court Interactions,” 38 American J. of Political Science 673–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold (1999) “United States Supreme Court Judicial Data Base (1953–1998 Terms),” http://www.ssc.msu.edu/~pls.Google Scholar
Van Winkle, Steven R. (1996) “Rotating Three-Judge Panels and Strategic Behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Wasby, Stephen L. (1986) “Of Judges, Hobgoblins and Small Minds: Dimension of Disagreement in the Ninth Circuit,” in Sheldon, Goldman, & Lamb, Charles M., eds. Judicial Conflict and Consensus: Behavioral Studies of American Appellate Courts. Lexington, KY: Univ. Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Wasby, Stephen L. (2000) “The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals En Bancs,” paper prepared for presentation at the 2000 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Waterman, Richard W., & Meier, Kenneth J. (1998) “Principal-Agent Models: An Expansion?,” 8 J. of Public Administration Research and Theory 173–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisdom, John Minor (1967) “The Friction Making, Exacerbating Political Role of Federal Courts,” 21 Southwestern Law J. 411–29.Google Scholar