Splitting the Difference: Modeling Appellate Court Decisions with Mixed Outcomes

In rendering a decision in a particular case, judges are not limited to finding simply for the appellant or for the respondent. Rather, in many cases, they have the option to find for the former on one or more issues and for the latter on one or more other issues. By thus “splitting the difference,” judges can render a judgment that favors both litigants to some degree. What accounts for such mixed outcomes? Several theoretical perspectives provide potential explanations for this phenomenon. First, Galanter (1974) suggests that litigants with greater resources will achieve more favorable outcomes in the courts. Where two high‐resource, repeat‐player litigants meet in the appeals courts, these more sophisticated and successful parties may be able to persuade the court to render decisions with mixed outcomes that at least partially favor each party. Second, split outcomes may result from strategic interactions among the appeals court judges on the decisionmaking panel. Where majority opinion writers seek to accommodate other judges on the panel, split outcomes have the potential to serve as an inducement for more ideologically extreme judges to join the majority opinion. Finally, Shapiro and Stone Sweet ( Stone Sweet 2000; Shapiro & Stone Sweet 2002 ) propose that courts will sometimes split the difference in order to enhance their legitimacy (and ultimately enhance compliance by losing parties). For example, in highly salient cases, where noncompliance would more clearly threaten court legitimacy, judges may be more likely to split the difference in order to mollify even the losing party. We develop an empirical model of mixed outcomes to test these propositions using data available from the U. S. Courts of Appeals Database and find evidence supportive of all three theoretical perspectives.     

Organizing for megaconsultation: HRDC and the Social Security Reform

Abstract: In January 1994, the Chretien government announced the Social Security Reform (SSR), a sweeping review of federal social policy programs. Led by the minister of human resources development, it was intended to produce a comprehensive policy innovation and led to extensive consultations under the auspices of the standing committee on human resources development, individual MPS, and the Department of Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC). This paper describes how the recently restructured HRDC created a temporary administrative adhocracy to design and support these “mega‐consultations.” Although the SSR was considered a failure, side‐swiped by the Program Review, it represents a high‐water mark in government consultation and informed the strategic plans of a newly elected government over the next four years. The article identifies the lessons of administering a mega‐consultation, particularly in combination with a comprehensive policy innovation, and suggests a research agenda for examining the value‐for‐money of different consultation instruments. Sommire: En janvier 1994, le government Chrétien annonqait la Réforme de la sécurité sociale (RSS), un examen fondamental des programmes fédéraux de politique sociale. Sous la direction du ministre du Développement des ressources humaines, cette réforme visait une innovation totale en matière de politiques et cela a entraîné de longues consultations sous les auspices du comité permanent sur le développement des ressources humaines, de députés particuliers, et du ministère du Développement des ressources humaines Canada (DRHC). Le présent article décrit comment le ministère du DRHC, récemment restructuré, a Créé une adhocratie administrative temporaire pour concevoir et appuyer ces » méga‐consultations «. Bien que la RSS ait été considérée comme un échec et mise de côté par l'examen des programmes, elle représente un record dans les consultations gouvernementales et a été utilisée pour les plans stratégiques des quatre années à venir par le gouvemement récemment elu. L'article identifie les leçons tirées de l'administration d'une mégaconsultation, en particulier en combinaison avec une innovation totale en matière de politiques, et propose un programme de recherche pour examiner l'optimisation des ressources de divers instruments de consultation.     

The sexual assault of undergraduate women at historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs)

Although research has shown that undergraduate women are at high risk for experiencing sexual assault, little research has been conducted with undergraduate women who are attending a historically Black college or university (HBCU). The purpose of this research is to document the prevalence of different types of sexual assault among undergraduate women at HBCUs and make comparisons to data collected from undergraduate women at non-HBCUs. Data on sexual assault victimization were collected from 3,951 undergraduate women at HBCUs using a cross-sectional, web-based survey. These data are compared to data collected from 5,446 undergraduate women at non-HBCUs using the same research methods. Findings indicate that approximately 9.7% of undergraduate women at HBCUs report experiencing a completed sexual assault since entering college. This rate is considerably lower than the comparable rate obtained from undergraduate women at non-HBCUs (13.7%). This difference seems to be associated with differences in alcohol-use frequency. Perhaps undergraduate women at HBCUs drink alcohol much less frequently and are thus less likely to be sexually assaulted when they are incapacitated and unable to provide consent. Alcohol use frequency, while controlling for other factors, seems to have an independent association with the likelihood of an undergraduate woman being sexually assaulted. Implications for the creation and delivery of sexual assault risk reduction and prevention policies and programs are discussed.     

Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals

Students of judicial behavior have increasingly turned to strategic accounts to understand judicial decision making. Scholarship on the Supreme Court and state high courts suggests that the decision to dissent is better understood in light of strategic considerations rather than simply reflecting ideological disagreement. We investigate whether these findings comport with behavior by judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. We develop a spatial model of the decision to dissent that incorporates both attitudinal and strategic elements and subject this model to empirical analysis. We find that ideological disagreement between a judge and the majority opinion writer is a more persuasive explanation of the decision to dissent than a strategic account in which a judge conditions a dissent on whether circuit intervention would obtain the judge's preferred outcome. Though we do not discount the existence of other types of strategic behavior on the Courts of Appeals, our research suggests that strategic accounts of dissenting behavior are not generalizable to all courts .     

Cause and manner of death among users of anabolic androgenic steroids

Medicolegally investigated deaths among 34 male users of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) are described. Nine persons were victims of homicide, 11 had committed suicide, 12 deaths were judged as accidental and 2 as indeterminate. In two cases of accidental poisoning, the levels of pharmaceuticals and illicit drugs were considered too low to be the sole cause of death and AAS was considered part of the lethal polypharmacia. Chronic cardiac changes were observed in 12 cases. In two cases of accidental poisonous deaths, these changes were regarded as contributory cause of death. Homicides, suicides, and poisonings determined accidental or indeterminate in manner were related to impulsive, disinhibited behavior characterized by violent rages, mood swings, and/or uncontrolled drug intake. The observations in the present study indicate an increased risk of violent death from impulsive, aggressive behavior, or depressive symptoms associated with use of AAS. There are also data to support earlier reports of possible lethal cardiovascular complications from use of AAS. Furthermore, a contributing role of AAS in lethal polypharmacia is suggested. Finally, the observations indicate that use of AAS may be the gateway of approach to abuse of other psychotropic drugs.     

Public managers and policy communities: learning to meet new challenges

Abstract: Comprehending external environments is an increasingly important facet of the work of senior public servants. The purpose of this paper is to introduce concepts that will help practitioners and academic observers to describe and analyse the structure and dynamics of policy communities. The paper first draws from the political science literature to identify different networks in policy communities, considering how the role of public managers changes from network to network, and then models policy communities as “learning” entities consisting of advocacy coalitions responding to policy challenges in competitive and cooperative interactions. The paper concludes that public managers have a special stewardship function in facilitating more productive learning within policy communities. Sommaire: Dans le cadre du travail des fonctionnaires supérieurs, il devient de plus en plus important de bien comprendre l'environnement extérieur. Le présent exposé vise à présenter des concepts qui aideront les professionnels du métier et les théoriciens à décrire et à analyser la structure et les dynamiques des communautés qui formulent les politiques. L'exposé se fonde d'abord sur la littérature dans le domaine des sciences politiques pour identifier divers réseaux'au sein de ces communautés, en tenant compte de l'évolution du rôle du gestionnaire public d'un réseau à l'autre, puis il présente un modèle de ces communautés en tant qu'ensembles «d'apprentissage» composés de coalitions qui militent en faveur d'un certain objectif et qui interagissent de façon concurrentielle et coopérative aux défis que posent les politiques. Selon la conclusion de l'exposé, les gestionnaires publics ont un rôle-clé dans la facilitation d'un apprentissage plus productif au sein des communautés qui décident des politiques.     

Appellate Court Supervision in the Federal Judiciary: A Hierarchical Perspective

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.