What Matters: Agreement between U.S. Courts of Appeals Judges

Careerist judges and the appeals process

I analyze how careerist judges formulate their decisions using information they uncover during deliberations as well as relevant information from previous decisions. I assume that judges have reputation concerns and try to signal to an evaluator that they can interpret the law correctly. If an appeal is brought, the appellate court’s decision reveals whether the judge interpreted the law proper...

Measuring what Matters in Specialist Domestic Violence Courts

Using data from seven specialist domestic violence courts (SDVCs) in England and Wales, it is argued that these relatively new institutions need to reorient themselves away from typical criminal justice performance measures (such as arrests, prosecutions and convictions) and towards measuring what matters to the service users themselves (in this case, victims of domestic violence). Analysis of ...

The Federal Appeals Courts at Century's End

I wish to thank Peggy Sanner for valuable suggestions, Eleanor Davison for processing this piece, and Jim Rogers for generous continuing support. Errors that remain are mine.

Divisional Arrangement for the Federal Appeals Courts

Stalking Secret Law: What Predicts Publication in the United States Courts of Appeals

Nearly four out of every five federal court of appeals opinions are unpublished. For more than twenty-five years, judges and scholars have debated the wisdom and fairness of this body of "secret" law. The debate over unpublished opinions recently intensified when the Eighth Circuit held that the Constitution requires courts to give these opinions precedential value. Despite continuing controver...