Publish or Paris? Evidence of How Judges Allocate Their Time

Ahmed E. Taha

American Law and Economics Review, 2004, vol. 6, issue 1, pages 1-27

Abstract: A utility-maximizing model of judicial behavior predicts that, all else equal, judges who have stronger preferences for publishing opinions, who have lighter workloads, or who are able to write publishable decisions more efficiently are more likely to publish their decisions. Using federal district court judges' decisions regarding the constitutionality of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, this article presents empirical support for these predictions. Many judicial, institutional, and other characteristics are examined that should be correlated with a judge's workload or with a judge's taste for, or efficiency in, publishing opinions. These analyses find that, all else equal, judges who held prior political positions, who received higher American Bar Association (ABA) ratings, who had lighter caseloads, who had longer tenures, who struck down the guidelines, or who had a greater chance of promotion to a U.S. court of appeals were more likely to publish their decisions. In addition, judges' publication decisions were significantly affected by the prior decisions of judges in the same district, but little affected by those of judges in other districts. Copyright 2004, Oxford University Press.

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.oup.co.uk/journals

Access Statistics for this article

American Law and Economics Review is edited by Hon. Richard A. Posner

More articles in American Law and Economics Review from Oxford University Press
Address: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK
Series data maintained by Christopher F. Baum ().