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.