scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers in "The Journal of Legal Studies in 2015"


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article explored the impact of increased judicial discretion on racial disparities in sentencing after the guidelines were struck down in United States v. Booker (543 U.S. 220 [2005]).
Abstract: The federal sentencing guidelines were created to reduce unwarranted sentencing disparities among similar defendants. This paper explores the impact of increased judicial discretion on racial disparities in sentencing after the guidelines were struck down in United States v. Booker (543 U.S. 220 [2005]). Using data on the universe of federal defendants, I find that black defendants received 2 months more in prison compared with their white counterparts after Booker, a 4 percent increase in average sentence length. To identify the sources of racial disparities, I construct a data set linking judges to defendants. Exploiting the random assignment of cases to judges, I find that racial disparities after Booker were greater among judges appointed after Booker, which suggests acculturation to the guidelines by judges with experience sentencing under a mandatory-guidelines regime. Prosecutors also responded to increased judicial discretion after Booker by charging black defendants with binding mandatory...

60 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a model of judicial decision making in which the judge overweights the salient facts of the case and the context of the judicial decision, which is comparative by nature, shapes which aspects of a case stand out and draw the judge's attention.
Abstract: We present a model of judicial decision making in which the judge overweights the salient facts of the case. The context of the judicial decision, which is comparative by nature, shapes which aspects of the case stand out and draw the judge’s attention. By focusing judicial attention on such salient aspects of the case, legally irrelevant information can affect judicial decisions. Our model accounts for a range of recent experimental evidence that bears on the psychology of judicial decisions, including anchoring effects in the setting of damages, decoy effects in choice of legal remedies, and framing effects in the decision to litigate. The model also offers a new approach to positive analysis of damage awards in torts.

47 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors show that once such models are incorporated into the analysis, equilibrium market reaction to nudges can reverse their theoretical consequences, and demonstrate that the case for nudging is often made without an explicit model of the boundedly rational choice procedures that lie behind consumer biases.
Abstract: Consumers’ systematic decision biases make them vulnerable to market exploitation. The doctrine of libertarian paternalism maintains that this problem can be mitigated by soft interventions (nudges) like disclosure or default architecture. However, the case for nudging is often made without an explicit model of the boundedly rational choice procedures that lie behind consumer biases. I demonstrate that once such models are incorporated into the analysis, equilibrium market reaction to nudges can reverse their theoretical consequences.

47 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore the hypothesis that certain systematic differences in substantive law among common-law jurisdictions can be explained in part by differences among the cost, fee, and financing rules governing litigation in respective jurisdictions.
Abstract: IN this article I shall explore the hypothesis that certain systematic differences in substantive law among common-law jurisdictions can be explained in part by differences among the cost, fee, and financing rules governing litigation in respective jurisdictions. Stated otherwise, my thesis is that the differences in financial incentives and other conditions governing litigation exert systematic pressures that influence, in predictable and stable ways, the development of the substantive law in different jurisdictions. In simplest terms, therefore, this article is about how procedure influences substance. To be sure, no one doubts that an understanding of procedure is an essential prerequisite to a successful comparative study.1 Yet the previous literature has largely ignored the major influences on substantive law that might be traced to the wide variation across the major common-law jurisdictions in the rules setting financial incentives for litigation. In particular, I shall emphasize the influence of these incentives on the types of cases that are brought, the evolution of judicial style and behavior, and ultimately, on the substantive content of the law.

38 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors explored the identification of two distinct sources of bias in the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk program: the police officer making the stop decisions and the police chief allocating personnel across precincts.
Abstract: We introduce a model to explore the identification of two distinct sources of bias in the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk program: the police officer making the stop decisions and the police chief allocating personnel across precincts. We analyze 10 years of data from the stop-and-frisk program in light of this theoretical framework. We find that white pedestrians are slightly less likely than African American pedestrians to be arrested conditional on being stopped. We interpret this finding as evidence that the officers making the stops are on average not biased against African Americans relative to whites, because the latter are stopped despite being a less productive stop for a police officer. We find suggestive evidence of police bias in the decision to frisk. Further research is needed.

37 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, Coase's theory of the problem of social cost is re-examined, with particular reference to criticisms of Pigou as an enthusiast for state intervention.
Abstract: Coase's thesis in "The Problem of Social Cost" is reexamined, with particular reference to criticisms of Pigou as an enthusiast for state intervention and to Coase's understanding of the history of English tort law; the litigation in Sturges v. Bridgman illustrates the analysis. Pigou is defended, and his function as a straw man in a rhetorical form of argument described. An analysis of Coase's thesis--that Pigou perpetrated a fundamental error in analysis--when related to the realities of land use disputes between neighbors suggests that the logic of the Coasean theory as to the correct analysis in terms of efficiency is incapable of generating any general rule as to what should be the legal response to the problem of social cost. Unless certain problems can be solved, it cannot provide guidance for the law.

35 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article used two newly collected data sets to demonstrate that black federal district judges are consistently overturned on appeal more often than white district judges, with a gap in reversal rates of up to 10 percentage points after taking into account previous professional and judicial experience, educational background, qualification ratings assigned by the American Bar Association, and differences in appellate panel composition.
Abstract: I use two newly collected data sets to demonstrate that black federal district judges are consistently overturned on appeal more often than white district judges, with a gap in reversal rates of up to 10 percentage points. This gap is robust and persists after taking into account previous professional and judicial experience, educational background, qualification ratings assigned by the American Bar Association, and differences in appellate panel composition. In total, I find that approximately 2,800 additional cases authored by black judges have been reversed over the last 12 years. This study is among the first to explore how higher-court judges evaluate opinions written by judges of color, and it has clear implications: despite attempts to make the judiciary more reflective of the general population, racial disparities in the legal system appear to persist.

30 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors empirically test the hierarchical relationship between federal trial court judges and their direct superiors in the judicial hierarchy and find that the likelihood of a district court case having an altered outcome after circuit court intervention is greatly affected by the content and context of the supervising circuit panel's opinion.
Abstract: What factors explain when federal trial court judges will be influenced and constrained by their direct superiors in the judicial hierarchy? To empirically test this hierarchical relationship, this study utilizes an original database of cases terminated in 29 federal district courts from 2000 to 2004 and a research design that naturally incorporates hierarchical interactions through a focus on cases that were appealed to the U.S. courts of appeal and later reversed and remanded. After controlling for litigant, judge, political, and case characteristics, the results indicate that the likelihood of a district court case having an altered outcome after circuit court intervention is greatly affected by the content and context of the supervising circuit panel’s opinion. These results have implications for the function and constraining ability of the judicial hierarchy and provide new insight into how judging significantly differs by court level.

28 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article developed a theoretical model suggesting that judges who are concerned about their reputation will tend to decide against their prior decisions as they approach elections and found evidence consistent with the predictions of their model using data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing.
Abstract: We seek to contribute to an understanding of how judicial elections affect the incentives and decisions of judges. We develop a theoretical model suggesting that judges who are concerned about their reputation will tend to decide against their prior decisions as they approach elections. That is, judges who imposed a large number of severe sentences in the past and are thus perceived to be strict will tend to impose less severe sentences prior to elections. Conversely, judges who imposed a large number of light sentences in the past and are thus perceived to be lenient will tend to impose more severe sentences prior to elections. Using data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, we test, and find evidence consistent with, the predictions of our model.

25 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article showed that people experience regret only when they feel responsible for the decision and can mute regret by trading through institutions that let them share responsibility with others, and that people intentionally debias by employing institutions in order to share responsibility.
Abstract: We claim that the endowment effect rarely justifies legal intervention in private ordering. We present the first theory, to our knowledge, to explain how institutions inhibit the endowment effect without altering people’s rights to their entitlements. The endowment effect is substantially caused by anticipated regret. We show that people experience regret only when they feel responsible for the decision and can mute regret by trading through institutions that let them share responsibility with others. As entitlement holders typically transact through institutions, we expect most people to make unbiased trading decisions in real markets. We test two common institutions—agency relationships and voting—that divide responsibility between multiple actors. Each caused most subjects to debias and trade in our study. We also show that people intentionally debias by employing institutions in order to share responsibility. Thus, when people can freely transact, private ordering generally overcomes the endow...

24 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article used multidimensional scaling in two dimensions to compare the justices' votes with positions taken by interest groups in Supreme Court cases and found that the voting alignments of the justices deviate substantially from the policy dimensions identified by the interest groups.
Abstract: Research in judicial politics often assumes that Supreme Court justices vote on the basis of one-dimensional policy preferences. This article challenges this assumption using multidimensional scaling in two dimensions to compare the justices’ votes with positions taken by interest groups in Supreme Court cases. Focusing on two active groups, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the US Chamber of Commerce, the article demonstrates that the voting alignments of the justices deviate substantially from the policy dimensions identified by the interest groups. Although the scaling approach cannot determine whether the divergence is due to countervailing policy influences or disagreements about legal methodology, a qualitative examination of the cases suggests some of both. These findings cast doubt on the notion that the Court operates in a one-dimensional policy space and suggest the need for more nuanced models of judicial motivation.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors use the National Corrections Reporting Program data, which records all parole-release decisions in the United States, and find that violation rates are consistently higher for African American parolees, a result not consistent with a parole board bias against African Americans.
Abstract: In a rational choice model of parole release, a color-blind parole board seeking to minimize violations would release all prisoners below a certain risk threshold. To test this prediction, we extend the outcome-test methodology used in assessing discrimination in police searches. We overcome the inframarginality critique by taking advantage of strategic timing of release: within each racial group, violation rates are equalized for a given sentence length. We use the National Corrections Reporting Program data, which record all parole-release decisions in the United States. We find that violation rates are consistently higher for African American parolees, a result not consistent with a parole board bias against African Americans. This conclusion is robust to a variety of tests, including ruling out postrelease discrimination. Evidence on the timing of release suggests a policy aimed at limiting racial disparities in time served rather than in violation rates, which favors fairness over efficiency.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In 2010, Illinois raised the maximum age for juvenile court for offenders who commit a misdemeanor to 18 as mentioned in this paper, and the effect of this law on juvenile offenders in Chicago was examined by applying a difference-in-differences design with multiple control groups.
Abstract: In the last decade, a number of states have expanded the jurisdiction of their juvenile courts by increasing the maximum age to 18. Proponents argue that these expansions reduce crime by increasing access to the beneficial features of the juvenile justice system. Critics counter that the expansions risk increasing crime by reducing deterrence. In 2010, Illinois raised the maximum age for juvenile court for offenders who commit a misdemeanor. By examining the effect of this law on juvenile offenders in Chicago, this paper provides the first empirical estimates of the consequences of recent legislative activity to raise the age of criminal majority. Applying a difference-in-differences design with multiple control groups, we find little evidence of an effect. Our results suggest that—contrary to the expectations of both advocates and opponents—increasing the maximum age for juvenile court does not affect juvenile recidivism.

ReportDOI
TL;DR: This paper developed a model of a Parole Board contemplating whether to grant parole release to a prisoner who has served their minimum sentence, which implies a simple outcome test for racial prejudice which is based on the released inmate's rate of recidivism.
Abstract: We develop a model of a Parole Board contemplating whether to grant parole release to a prisoner who has nished serving their minimum sentence. The model implies a simple outcome test for racial prejudice which is based on the released inmate’s rate of recidivism and is robust to the inframarginality problem. Our model has several testable implications which we show empirical support for. Applying our test to data on all prison releases in Pennsylvania between 1999-2003 we nd no evidence of racial prejudice.


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: According to a survey conducted by the Virginia State Bar, this article, the correlation between hours billed by 1,207 lawyers and their annual compensation is.076, a significantly positive relationship.
Abstract: ing from firms' record-keeping requirements for client billing, in other words, one observes that those with greater incentives to shirk are made to keep more exact records of their time. This finding is corroborated by another test indicating that, for reasons other than billing, law firm owners increase input monitoring as firm size increases. Virginia lawyers were asked to choose which of the following described how frequently they prepared time reports not for use in billing (\"unbilled\" reports): never, less frequently than monthly, monthly, or more frequently than monthly. If the responses are coded 0 for the first two responses and 1 for the second two, the correlation between the preparation of unbilled time reports at least monthly and the number of lawyers in the firm is .127. Thus, there is a positive and significant correlation between monitoring by unbilled time reports and firm size. Finally, if hours billed to clients are monitored by law firm owners, one would expect rewards to team members to be a positive function of hours billed. This too appears to be the case. According to data collected by the Virginia State Bar,s8 the correlation between hours billed by 1,207 lawyers and their annual compensation is .076, a significantly positive relationship. In addition to the \"stick\" wielded by the use of billed and unbilled time reports, law firm owners apparently mitigate shirking by the \"car17 The associates category includes associates of sole practitioners (see note 13 supra). 18s For survey details, see note 12 supra. Survey respondents did not report total hours billed, but that figure can be estimated from responses to two other questions, time spent on work billed by the hour (i.e., not billed for a fixed fee) and the percentage of total billings that this time represented. Dividing the hours by the percentage yields the estimate for total hours billed on both an hourly and fixed-fee basis for each lawyer-respondent.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) balances risks and benefits before approving pharmaceuticals as discussed by the authors, and the FDA places inordinate emphasis on errors of commission versus those of omission, a bias that is compounded by its desire to avoid blame should risks eventuate.
Abstract: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) balances risks and benefits before approving pharmaceuticals. But powerful behavioral biases that lead to the mishandling of uncertainty also influence its approval process. The FDA places inordinate emphasis on errors of commission versus those of omission, a bias that is compounded by its desire to avoid blame should risks eventuate. Despite extensive testing, uncertainties inevitably remain. We often learn about the risks of drugs after they are on the market. And there are off-label uses of drugs, which are not part of the initial testing. The FDA shows a strong aversion to ambiguous risks. This is the opposite of what is desirable. For any given initial expected risk level, optimal risk-taking decisions involving uncertainty in a multiperiod world should prefer ambiguous risks and the potential for learning relative to well-established risks of the same magnitude. Therefore, the FDA should capitalize on option value.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that there is an important category of agency decisions under uncertainty in which it is rational to be arbitrary, i.e., when no first-order reason can be given for the agency's choice, yet the agency has valid second-order reasons to make a particular choice.
Abstract: How should administrative law cope with genuine uncertainty, in which probabilities cannot be attached to outcomes? I argue that there is an important category of agency decisions under uncertainty in which it is rational to be arbitrary. Rational arbitrariness arises when no first-order reason can be given for the agency’s choice, yet the agency has valid second-order reasons to make a particular choice. When these conditions obtain, even coin flipping may be a perfectly rational strategy of decision making for agencies. Courts should defer to rationally arbitrary decisions. There is a proper role for courts in ensuring that agencies have adequately invested resources in information gathering, which may dispel uncertainty. Yet in some cases the value of further investments in information gathering will be genuinely uncertain. If so, courts should defer to agencies’ second-order choices about informational investments on the same grounds that justify deference to agencies’ first-order choices unde...

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper found that at a statistically significant level, law professors at elite law schools who make donations to Democratic political candidates write liberal scholarship and law professors who make donation to Republican political candidates wrote conservative scholarship.
Abstract: Law professors routinely accuse each other of making politically biased arguments in their scholarship. They have also helped produce a large empirical literature on judicial behavior that finds that judicial opinions sometimes reflect the ideological biases of the judges who join them. Yet no one has used statistical methods to test the parallel hypothesis that legal scholarship reflects the political biases of law professors. This paper provides the results of such a test. We find that, at a statistically significant level, law professors at elite law schools who make donations to Democratic political candidates write liberal scholarship and law professors who make donations to Republican political candidates write conservative scholarship. These findings raise questions about standards of objectivity in legal scholarship.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors provide an overview of different approaches to policy evaluation, focusing on how different types of uncertainty should be accounted for in the policy evaluation process and how appropriate incorporation of uncertainty in policy evaluation leads to what they call sturdy decisions.
Abstract: This paper provides an overview of different approaches to policy evaluation. We focus on how different types of uncertainty should be accounted for in the policy evaluation process. Appropriate incorporation of uncertainty in policy evaluation leads to what we call sturdy decisions. We describe classical Bayesian decision theory and decision theory under ambiguity. We provide examples ranging from the deterrent effect of capital punishment to Food and Drug Administration approval rules to environmental policy to illustrate the conceptual framework we present. Throughout, the role of judgment in any formal approach to policy evaluation is emphasized.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors found that female and more liberal judges are substantially more likely to write opinions in sexual harassment cases and that this pattern appears to result not from policy-driven behavior by female and liberal assigners but from an institutional environment in which judges seek out opinions they wish to write.
Abstract: We evaluate opinion assignment and authorship on the US courts of appeals. We derive theoretical explanations and predictions for opinion assignment that are motivated by the courts of appeals’ distinct institutional setting. Using an original data set of sexual harassment cases, we test our predictions and find that female and more liberal judges are substantially more likely to write opinions in sexual harassment cases. We further find that this pattern appears to result not from policy-driven behavior by female and liberal assigners but from an institutional environment in which judges seek out opinions they wish to write. Judicial opinions are the vehicles of judicial policy, and thus these results have important implications for the relationship between legal rules and opinion assignment and for the study of diversity and representation on multimember courts.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a systematic analysis of the extent to which applying the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) has affected national policy has been conducted, and the results show that putting a value on changes in carbon dioxide emissions does not generally affect the ranking of the preferred policy compared with the status quo.
Abstract: We evaluate a recent US initiative to include the social cost of carbon (SCC) in regulatory decisions. To our knowledge, this paper provides the first systematic analysis of the extent to which applying the SCC has affected national policy. We examine all economically significant federal regulations since 2008 and obtain an unexpected result: putting a value on changes in carbon dioxide emissions does not generally affect the ranking of the preferred policy compared with the status quo. Overall, we find little evidence that using the SCC has mattered for the choice of policy in the United States. This is true even for policies explicitly aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions. We offer some possible explanations for the patterns observed in the data.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article explored the relationship between political parties' campaign contributions and partisan voting among state supreme court judges who won partisan elections and found that contributions from political parties are associated with partisanship in judicial decision making.
Abstract: In this article, we explore the relationship between political parties’ campaign contributions and partisan voting among state supreme court judges who won partisan elections. Using three different measures of partisan voting, we find that contributions from political parties are associated with partisanship in judicial decision making. Campaign contributions from political parties are related to judicial voting in the party-preferred ideological direction and to cohesive voting among judges from the same political party. We find that the relationship between party contributions and partisan voting is stronger for Republican judges than for Democratic judges.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper explored the relationship between constitutional torture prohibitions and torture practices by utilizing new data that correct for biases in previous measures of torture and a recently developed method that mitigates selection bias by incorporating information about countries' constitutional commitments into their research design.
Abstract: The prohibition of torture is one of the most emblematic norms of the modern human rights movement, and its prevalence in national constitutions has increased steeply in the past 3 decades. Yet little is known about whether constitutional torture prohibitions actually reduce torture. In this article, we explore the relationship between constitutional torture prohibitions and torture practices by utilizing new data that correct for biases in previous measures of torture and a recently developed method that mitigates selection bias by incorporating information about countries’ constitutional commitments into our research design. Using these new data and this new method, as well as more conventional data sources and methods, we find no evidence that constitutional torture prohibitions have reduced rates of torture in a statistically significant or substantively meaningful way.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that a rational policy process must be Bayesian in order to avoid paradoxical, even absurd, recommendations, such as policies that depend on sunk costs or that suppress costless information.
Abstract: A common misconception is that precautionary motives in public policy cannot be justified within the Bayesian rational choice framework and that decision criteria that appeal to ambiguity and pessimism are needed. This paper critically evaluates these claims, arguing that a rational policy process must be Bayesian in order to avoid paradoxical, even absurd, recommendations, such as policies that depend on sunk costs or that suppress costless information. The paper also argues that the distinction between measurable risk and fundamental, or Knightian, uncertainty can be made within the standard framework of Bayesian rationality. Finally, a simple model is proposed to highlight situations in which precautionary action may be normatively justified.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors address an important problem and the frequency of teaching and learning/teaching-learning in higher education/university student, generated by the incapacity to himself selectively information conveyed through alternative sources.
Abstract: Abstract The paper addresses an important problem and the frequency of teaching and learning/teaching-learning in higher education/university student, generated by the incapacity to himself selectively information conveyed through alternative sources. The theoretical approach of the course in European Union law from the dual perspective of the studies about the EU (from the perspective of Community law/EU of the European economy as well as from the perspective of the European administration, international relations and historical and cultural studies or interdisciplinary) require students to knowledge/concept related institutions entrusted with the exercise of prerogative powers in a State, who they studied/problems in previous years in fact, it is precisely this times is done or shall not become unwieldy. And last but not least not be overlooked aspects of individual differences that influence the process of learning: the way of thinking and the preferences of both factors (teachers/students) on lifelong learning, which influences the effectiveness of the approaches in the process of instruction (or multiple types of intelligence entitled, the use of information and others).

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper found that presidents do not take much account of competence when promoting judges, despite the fact that there is some, albeit mixed, evidence that the most competent appellate judges were highly competent district judges.
Abstract: The judicial behavior literature typically assumes that politicians nominate judges on the basis of their ideology. That assumption helps explain studies that show a statistical correlation between the party of the nominating president and the ideological direction of the votes of judges. However, the assumption is too simple. Casual empiricism suggests that politicians, interest groups, and the public care not only about the ideology of judges. They may also care about their competence and political loyalty and about ensuring that the judicial system is diverse. We focus on the role of competence in judicial promotions. We find, however, that presidents do not take much account of competence when promoting judges—despite the fact that there is some, albeit mixed, evidence that the most competent appellate judges were highly competent district judges.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present the fundamentals of the tax system in general, the basic elements of a tax system as well as the organization of the German tax system analysis, especially throughout the tax levy and how the taxation typology functions.
Abstract: Abstract This paper presents the fundamentals of the tax system in general, the basic elements of a tax system as well as the organization of the German tax system analysis, especially throughout the tax levy and how the taxation typology functions. This theme was chosen in order to expose the principles of German taxation system. With a tumultuous and troubled history, mainly caused by the two World Wars‟ destructions, the German state is considered the „economic locomotive” and a pillar of the European Union. Germany‟s economy is mainly driven by the automotive industry, chemical industry, telecommunications, commerce and agriculture. Of particular importance is the qualitative analysis of conventions for the avoidance of double taxation concluded by Germany; and related implications on fiscal policy. The methodology used in this paper consists of presenting literature derived theories and practical analysis of the German tax system in terms of tax legislation and the evolution of double taxation conventions concluded by Germany with different countries. After the study, the conclusions on the size of the national tax system driven by the example of the German tax system were founded.


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Sunstein this article used the votes of moderate justices to create an adjusted voting index for each justice that controlled for the influence of nonideological factors (for example, changes in the characteristics of cases).
Abstract: This paper addresses the two main criticisms made by Cass Sunstein of the ideological rankings of justices in our book on federal judicial behavior. The first was that ranking justices from different time periods is problematic because the justices faced a different mixture of cases. The second questioned our implicit assumption that cases are fungible for the purpose of calculating a justice’s ideology. To address the first criticism, we use the votes of moderate justices to create an adjusted voting index for each justice that controls for the influence of nonideological factors (for example, changes in the characteristics of cases). We respond to the second criticism by ranking justices on the basis of their votes in the most significant and controversial cases—5–4 decisions and cases reported in the New York Times. Overall, these adjustments result in only minor changes in the rankings in our book.