Signaling and Precedent in Federal District Court Opinions

Narrowing Supreme Court Precedent from Below

Lower courts supposedly follow Supreme Court precedent—but they often don’t. Instead of adhering to the most persuasive interpretations of the Court’s opinions, lower courts often adopt narrower readings. For example, recent courts of appeals’ decisions have narrowly interpreted the Court’s rulings on police searches, gun control, and campaign finance. This practice—which I call “narrowing from...

The authority of Supreme Court precedent

We construct the complete network of 30,288 majority opinions written by the U.S. Supreme Court and the cases they cite from 1754 to 2002 in he United States Reports. Data from this network demonstrates quantitatively the evolution of the norm of stare decisis in the 19th Century and significant deviation from this norm by the activist Warren Court. We further describe a method for creating aut...

United States District Court Northern District of Illinois Western Division Federal Trade Commission

Gender Disparity and Ecological Contexts of Court Community in Federal District Courts

Partiality and Disclosure in Supreme Court Opinions

This Essay begins by identiying the various kinds of partiality the Justices of the Supreme Court can have in the cases they decide. Although there is widespread recognition of the influence these biases might have, for the most part the Justices continue to write opinions as if they (and other judges) were entirely disinterested. This practice is often thought to be justified as a source ofjud...