Appellate court assignments as a natural experiment: Gender panel effects in sex discrimination cases

Robert S. Erikson

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2022, vol. 19, issue 2, 423-446

Abstract: This paper argues that estimating causal effects on US Appellate Court panels can be advanced by analyzing the data as a series of natural experiments, fully exploiting the as‐if random assignment of judges to cases. As a template, this paper reanalyzes Boyd et al.'s data on sex‐discrimination cases. The question is the impact on the votes by male judges from having a female judge on their panel. Leverage from as‐if random assignment can be exploited only by restricting comparisons of treatments cases (in the example, female co‐panelist) exclusively to control cases (all‐male panels) from the same period and time period from which the treatment cases are drawn. With as‐if random assignment reducing the possibility of a biased estimate, the results confirms a gender panel effect similar in size to the claim by Boyd et al. Restricting comparisons to within the same circuit and time period further advances understanding of the causal mechanism. When male or female judges side with female plaintiffs, the females are more persuasive at swaying the votes of their male co‐panelists' votes.

Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12312

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

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:empleg:v:19:y:2022:i:2:p:423-446

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Empirical Legal Studies from John Wiley & Sons
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().