The Influence of Administrative Law Judge and Political Appointee Decisions on Appellate Courts in National Labor Relations Board Cases

Scholars have long been simultaneously concerned with the factors that influence appellate court decision making and the level of deference that the courts allow for agencies. However, scholars have treated administrative agencies as unitary actors with a single level of decision making, but in reality agency decisions involve input from multiple actors within the agency. I argue that appellate courts rely more heavily on decisions made by actors in the bureaucracy with greater levels of expertise and who are less politically motivated as cues in their decision making. This theory is bolstered by legal precedent in the area of administrative law that suggests courts should more heavily rely on the expert judgment of administrative judges. Thus, as a result of their increased expertise, appearance of political neutrality, and institutional support, courts will be more reliant on decisions issued by administrative law judges (ALJs) than those issued by the political appointees as cues in their decision making. Using over 300 unfair labor practice decisions issued by the federal appeals courts on review of cases from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), I develop a model of appeals court decision making in unfair labor practice cases as a function of the initial decision of the ALJ, the final order of the political appointees of the NLRB, case characteristics, the ideology of the deciding appeals court panel, Supreme Court influence, and economic factors. Though the ideology of the court plays a role in its decision making, cues from ALJ decision making and that of the Board weigh more heavily in appellate court outcomes. However, cues from ALJ decisions play the most consistent role in appellate court decision making, even in more difficult cases. This has important implications for agency strategy in courts and suggests that future research should consider the influence of lower‐level decision making over appellate court decision making in the area of administrative law.     

Stampede to judgement: persuasive influence and herding behavior by courts

We model appeals courts as Bayesian decision makers with privateinformation about a supreme court's interpretation of the law;each court also observes the previous decisions of other appealscourts in similar cases. Such 'persuasive influence' can cause'herding' behavior by later appeals courts as decisions progressivelyrely more on previous decisions and less on a court's privateinformation. We provide an example drawn from a recent UnitedStates Supreme Court decision finding unconstitutional a basicprovision of a law previously found constitutional by six circuitcourts. Herding on the wrong decision may remain uncorrected,since review of harmonious decisions is rare.     

Legally Queer: The Construction of Sexuality in LGBQ Asylum Claims

Using court decisions, interviews with legal actors, and ethnographic observations, this paper analyzes the development of sexual identity classifications for sexual minorities seeking asylum in the United States and argues that the adjudication of such claims works to consolidate and regulate sexual identities but also creates possibilities for recognizing marginalized queer identities. Asylum seekers must prove their sexual identities, and immigration officials must classify claimants as belonging to a protected group. At the inception of queer asylum law in 1990, protected categories were highly circumscribed, but the indeterminacy of the law allowed advocates and asylum seekers to challenge existing categories and stake out new claims based on their sexualities. Against the backdrop of extant criticisms of the asylum process for queers, this paper suggests that the way asylum law has been elaborated, adapted, and interpreted, particularly in approximately the past decade, offers possibilities for making unique identity claims that are not recognized in existing scholarship.     

Medical Malpractice Appeals in a Civil Law System: Do Administrative and Civil Courts Award Noneconomic Damages Differently?

How do courts award noneconomic damages? Does it matter if the state is the defendant? This article addresses these questions in the context of medical malpractice appeals to the Spanish Supreme Court. Moreover, this study provides the first empirical analysis of the quantification of noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases in administrative courts, where the state is the defendant, and in civil courts. This separation of jurisdictions is a common feature in civil law tradition countries. Yet, critics of this separation in general, and specialized courts in particular, argue that parties might be subject to different treatments and that similar cases might reach different outcomes, namely in terms of the quantification of damages. A consistent result of this paper is that no significant differences between noneconomic damages in civil and administrative appeals were found. The separation of jurisdictions does not necessarily imply that courts reach different outcomes, even when the state is the defendant. Citizens should not refrain from bringing their claims forward against the state, a more powerful party. In the current era of increasing juridification and judicialization of modern life (Ginsburg 2009; Hirschl 2006; Hirschl 2011), it is crucial for society that citizens and other parties litigating with the state are not disadvantageously treated.     

国际组织管辖豁免：从绝对豁免走向限制豁免

作为国际法的主体,国际组织享有豁免权得到了普遍的承认。但是,随着国际法的发展,国际组织豁免权也遭遇了严重挑战。尽管如此,国际法的实践表明,国际组织管辖豁免尚未如国家管辖豁免一样从绝对豁免发展为限制豁免。当事人＂诉诸法院之权利＂作为国际组织豁免的制衡器,还没有发展成为习惯国际法,国际强行法也并不必然具有否定国际组织管辖豁免的效力。从人权保护角度讲,如果要维护国际组织豁免权以保障其独立行使职能,就要积极寻求完善相应的替代争议解决机制,保障当事人寻求正义权利的实现。     

Assessing Testimonial Evidence in Asylum Proceedings: Guiding Standards from the International Criminal Tribunals

Although credibility determinations rest at the core of refugeeprotection, international refugee law has failed to developa body of evidentiary principles that is tailored to the uniquedimensions of the testimony of those seeking asylum. This articleexamines recent developments in assessing oral testimony ininternational criminal law. International criminal law judges,like national asylum adjudicators, must transcend geographic,linguistic, cultural, educational and psychological barriersin order to assess the credibility of testimony. As a result,these new international courts have developed a body of principlesof international evidence law for assessing the testimony ofalleged victims of, and witnesses to, human rights abuses. Currentsocial science research on the asylum procedures in severaljurisdictions reveals that asylum decision makers often failto adapt the determination process to account for the realitiesof refugees presenting their cases in legal fora, directingproceedings with a ‘presumptive skepticism’ of claims.It is argued that the nuanced and rigourous model for the assessmentof the testimonial evidence of alleged victims and witnessesof human rights abuses in war crimes trials introduces effectiveinternational norms for the assessment of credibility in asylumproceedings.     

Subsidiarity and 'Arguability': the European Court of Human Rights' Case Law on Judicial Review in Asylum Cases

The European Court of Human Rights’ case law on judicialreview in asylum cases is not entirely consistent. However,it can be interpreted as consistent if two presumptions areaccepted. First, that, as the Court's role should be subsidiaryto that of domestic courts, domestic judicial review shouldat least be of the same quality and substance as the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights’ review. Secondly, that the Courtdistinguishes between arguable and non-arguable cases not justin the context of Article 13 ECHR and of the admissibility ofapplications, but that this distinction is central to its entirecase law about the asylum procedure. This analysis results ina coherent doctrine on deadlines for submitting evidence, theburden of proof, the intensity of judicial review, and suspensiveeffect. If the Court understands its case law in this way, itcan prevent it from becoming, in some respects, a court of firstinstance.     

The Incidence and Structure of Conflict on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

In 1982, Congress established the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialized court, with the objective of reducing judicial conflict and harmonizing circuit law in specific policy areas of special complexity. This article examines the incidence and determinants of judicial conflict on the U.S. courts of appeals, focusing specifically on the Federal Circuit. Using international trade and customs regulation cases decided during the 1982 to 1995 terms, the analysis reviews three possible explanations of judicial conflict: policy-oriented, sociolegal, and organizational. The analysis shows that conflict appears in 8.4 percent of the trade and customs regulation decisions rendered by the Federal Circuit during the period of study. The policy direction of Federal Circuit decisions and the court's hierarchical relationship with lower specialized courts provide the strongest explanation for the emergence of conflict on the court. Organizational factors such as panel composition evinced rather anemic explanatory capacity. The results raise an important functional similarity between the Federal Circuit and the generalist courts of appeals. Contrary to the laments of legal practitioners that conflict on the Federal Circuit is excessive relative to conflict on the generalist circuit courts, this analysis finds little support for that claim. Rather, the level of overt conflict on the court is actually low and corroborates conflict levels that have been reported for other U.S. courts of appeals.     

Administrative "health courts" for medical injury claims: the federal constitutional issues

Our article analyzes whether the federal government may constitutionally supplant a traditional system of common-law trials before state judges and juries with new federal institutions designed by statute for compensating victims of medical injuries. Specifically, this article examines the federal constitutional issues raised by various proposals to replace traditional medical malpractice litigation in state courts with a federal system of administrative "health courts." In doing so, we address the following constitutional issues: 1. Is there federal authority to preempt state law (the commerce clause and spending clause issues)? 2. May jurisdiction be created in non-article 3 tribunals, and may claims be decided without trial by jury (the separation of powers and Seventh Amendment issues)? 3. Would pilot programs that require some claims to be pursued in a federal administrative forum while other claimants are left to pursue traditional state tort law remedies be constitutional (the equal protection issue)? The article concludes that a federal compensation system through administrative health courts should be constitutional provided the statute is appropriately drafted and that appropriate factual findings are made concerning the benefits to patients and the public as well as to doctors and their insurers.     

美国服刑人员诉诸司法之权利的宪法保护研究——以美国宪法判例为对象

在美国,服刑人员诉诸司法之权利是一项受宪法保护的基本权利。这一权利的基本权利性质并非来自于宪法文本的明文规定,而是由宪法判例加以确认的。从服刑人员诉诸司法之权利领域的案例法发展历程来看,美国联邦最高法院的司法判断决定了服刑人员诉诸司法之权利受到保护的层次、程度和范围,其中1977年的邦德斯案具有里程碑意义。虽然立法和行政对这一案例法的发展状况也产生了一定影响,但司法的独特功能是实现对服刑人员诉诸司法之权利进行宪法保护的根本保障。     

Institutional Arrangements and the Dynamics of Agenda Formation in the U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals

The manner in which agenda change occurs demonstrates how institutional arrangements influence agenda priorities in the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals. A neo-institutional theoretic perspective is employed to examine the dynamics of agenda formation in these courts. The article finds that the Supreme Court's agenda choices influence the decisions of litigants, interest groups, and lawyers to appeal certain cases to the Courts of Appeals. While the Supreme Court's agenda primarily is influenced by internal factors, it is constrained by agenda changes in the appeals courts. Critically, it is shown that these federal appellate courts exist within an endogenous system with respect to agenda formation, as both courts respond to agenda changes made in the other over time.     

‘Playing the Judicial Card’: Litigation Strategies during the Process of Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty

During the process of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, a number of constitutional jurisdictions were activated by political actors. In playing ‘the judicial card’, opponents of ratification decided to seek political goals through judicial means, and thus they were obliged to develop litigation strategies. This article explores such strategies and the responses that courts gave them. It shows that constitutional proceedings with regards to the Lisbon Treaty became a political battleground governed by legal logics, in which the interpretation of European clauses, the democratic deficit of the Union and the tensions underlying the European judicial dialogue were privileged objects of discussion between claimants and courts in which law and politics intertwined.     

The Institutional Hearing Program: A Study of Prison-Based Immigration Courts in the United States

This article presents the findings of the first research study of the Institutional Hearing Program (IHP), a prison-based immigration court system run by the U.S. Department of Justice. Although the IHP has existed for four decades, little is publicly known about the program's origin, development, or significance. Based on original analysis of archival records, this study makes three central contributions. First, it traces the origin and growth of the IHP within federal, state, and municipal correctional facilities. Notably, although the IHP began in 1980 as a program to deport Cuban asylum seekers held in civil detention in an Atlanta prison, it now operates to deport noncitizens serving prison sentences in twenty-three federal prisons, nineteen state prison systems, and a few municipal jails. Second, this article uncovers the crucial role that prison-based immigration courts have played in shaping the design of carceral institutions around the priorities of an immigration system that primarily targets Latinos for deportation. Third, this article shows how immigration courts embedded in carceral spaces have served as influential, yet overlooked, incubators of changes to immigration law and practice that today apply to all immigration courts, not just the IHP. These findings have important implications for contemporary understandings of the relationship between immigration detention, racialized control of migration, and penal punishment.     

International Law and Administrative Insulation: A Comparison of Refugee Status Determination Regimes in the United States,Canada, and Australia

International law provides nations with a common definition of a refugee, yet the processes by which countries determine who should be granted refugee status look strikingly different, even across nations with many institutional, cultural, geographical, and political similarities. This article compares the refugee status determination regimes of three popular asylum seeker destinations—the United States, Canada, and Australia. Despite these nations' similar border control policies, asylum seekers crossing their borders access three very different systems. These differences have less to do with political debates over admission and border control policy than with the level of insulation the administrative decision‐making agency enjoys from political interference and judicial review. Bureaucratic justice is conceptualized and organized differently in different states, and so states vary in how they draw the line between refugee and nonrefugee.     

In The Shadow Of Terror: The Illusive First Amendment Rights Of Aliens

Despite a sustained period of peace and prosperity in the United States, Congress has enacted considerable anti-terrorism legislation, which-like past laws based in fear of foreign threats to the national security-erodes freedom of expression. This article provides a political, historical and legal background before examining this legislation and its application in cases affecting the rights of First Amendment claimants. The article finds that most courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have tended to use a formulaic strict scrutiny analysis of the legislation that endorses the government's position that, for example, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, is a content-neutral response to the important interest in reducing the threat of terrorism. The article argues that the courts instead should adopt an analysis based on the real intent and discriminatory effects of the law to find it is impermissibly content based, overbroad and vague.     

Contentious Politics in the Courthouse: Law as a Tool for Resisting Authoritarian States in the Middle East

Under what conditions will individuals mobilize law to resist states that operate above the law? In authoritarian countries, particularly in the Middle East, law is a weapon the state wields for social control, centralizing power, and legitimation. Authoritarian legal codes are overwhelmingly more deferential to state authority than protective of citizens' rights. Nevertheless, people throughout the Arab world deploy law to contest a broad array of state abuses: land expropriations, unlawful arrests, denials of jobs and welfare, and so on. Using detailed interviews in Jordan and Palestine, I outline a theory of law as a tool for resisting authoritarian state actors. Integrating qualitative insights with survey experiments fielded in Egypt and Jordan, I test this theory and show that aggrieved individuals mobilize law when they expect courts are powerful and attainable allies in contentious politics. My results further demonstrate that judicial independence does not uniformly increase authoritarian publics' willingness to access courts.     

BUILDING AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT AS A GOAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIAL SYSTEM REFORM

With rapid social and economic development, nowadays there are an increasing number of social conflicts, especially administrative disputes between the government and individual citizens. However, many of the conflicts cannot be effectively solved through administrative litigation, which continuously leads to a high rate of appeals and complaints, making it ever more difficult to resolve administrative disputes. Often susceptible to interference from local party committees and governments, courts face difficulties to accept complaints, conduct trials, make decisions and enforce judgments, which make courts dysfunctional in supervising administrative organs. All the issues above are caused by problems in the court administration system. The control of the court’s personnel, expenses and property is decentralized, with courts divided by administrative regions, income provided through local finance and personnel controlled by local party committees. However, administrative organs are defendants in administrative litigations and courts are to review the legality of administrative acts. It is neither realistic nor logical to have courts in the de facto control of local governments to supervise the governments. Therefore, it is of necessity to build a vertical administrative court system subordinated to the Supreme People’s Court. This vertical system shall free courts from the control of local governments, overcome localization of the judiciary, and would be able to effectively solve administrative conflicts and ensure that government decisions/orders are smoothly carried out.     

Law students' trust in the courts and the police

Law students prepare for a legal career and it is therefore of general interest, how much trust they have in the police and the courts. Their views may be influenced by their studies, media consumption, direct experience and other factors. In a previous study it appears as if law students are becoming more critical over the course of their studies. This explorative questionnaire study compares the views of 2012 final year undergraduate law students with the answers the same cohort gave in 2010, when starting their studies, and with final year law students 2010. Contrary to our expectation, the final year law students of 2012 showed more trust in courts and police than their predecessors 2010. The data suggest that the study of law, personal experiences and those of family and friends, as well as media effects are among the factors forming trust in the institutions.     

Appealing (but not Necessarily Winning) to Improve Your Social Status

In this article, I argue that litigants identify the appellate courts as offering a powerful and public arena where litigants' claims are placed (at least temporarily) on an equal footing with the current state of the law. In this context, the initiation of appeals is treated as synonymous with receiving endorsements from the appellate courts that the litigants' original claims had sufficient merit to deserve better treatment than they had received previously from either the opposing parties or the trial courts. These actions work to raise appellants' social status, and I propose that such activity is one additional reason why some litigants might appeal.     

Does staffing affect the time to dispose cases in Greek courts?

This paper examines one particular aspect of the Greek courts: the time they need to dispose cases. As an indirect measure for the time needed to dispose cases, we use the ratio of cases remaining at the end of the year to total cases introduced. Using this metric, we document a steady increase in the time needed to dispose cases. Furthermore, we examine whether staffing with respect to caseload, and especially the lack of sufficient staffing for a given caseload, is a factor that contributes to the slow disposition of cases in Greek courts. The data suggest that the ratio of staff to total number of cases affects the time needed to dispose of cases in appeals courts and higher civil trial courts, but not in lower civil trial courts or administrative courts. Therefore, the recommendation of the existing literature, which mainly follows from the analysis of first instance courts, to emphasize measures that simplify procedures and lead to an increase in accountability and competition, should be adopted, at least for courts of first instance. For appeals courts, our results suggest that the improvement of the staff to case ratio may be paired with such measures, while the improvement of the quality of first instance rulings may reduce the appeals rate. The available data is also used to present the steady increase in the appeals rate and the lack of a reaction to the documented increase in the budget of the Ministry of Justice.