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

  title={Appellate court assignments as a natural experiment: Gender panel effects in sex discrimination cases},
  author={Robert S. Erikson},
  journal={Journal of Empirical Legal Studies},
  • R. Erikson
  • Published 13 April 2022
  • Economics
  • Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
This paper argues that causal inference about panel effects on the US Courts of Appeals can be advanced by taking advantage of the random assignment of judges to cases. The substantive example is gender panel effects in sex-discrimination cases. The paper makes an empirical claim that on sex-discrimination cases, judge assignment can be considered as-if random. Treating the data as a series of natural experiments, the paper confirms that the presence of a female judge on a panel influences male… 

Figures and Tables from this paper


Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging
We enter the debate over the role of sex in judging by addressing the two predominant empirical questions it raises: whether male and female judges decide cases distinctly (individual effects) and
Racial Diversity and Judicial Influence on Appellate Courts
This paper evaluates the substantive consequences of judicial diversity on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Because of the small percentage of racial minorities on the federal bench, the key question in
Republican-Majority Appellate Panels Increase Execution Rates for Capital Defendants
We use the quasi-random assignment of cases to three-judge panels on the US Courts of Appeals to assess the consistency of adjudication of death penalty appeals. We find clear evidence that panels
Interpreting Circuit Court Voting Patterns: A Social Interactions Framework
Many empirical studies have found that circuit judges’ votes are significantly influenced by their panel colleagues. Although this influence is typically measured in terms of colleagues’
Institutional Dynamics on the U.S. Court of Appeals: Minority Representation Under Panel Decision Making
This article assesses how the institutional context of decision making on three-judge panels of the federal Court of Appeals affects the impact that gender and race have on judicial decisions. Our
Neutral Assignment of Judges at the Court of Appeals
Judges on panels at the US Court of Appeals are not intended to represent a mosaic of society. They bring an assortment of biases and predispositions to the decision making process. Judicial
Challenging the Randomness of Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals
A fundamental academic assumption about the federal courts of appeals is that the three judge panels that hear cases have been randomly configured. Scores of scholarly articles have noted this
Randomness Reconsidered: Modeling Random Judicial Assignment in the U.S. Courts of Appeals
Sunstein et al. (2006) utilized the random assignment of judges to cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals to estimate the effect of partisanship on these judges without the possibility of bias from
Are Judges Political?: An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary
Over the past two decades, the United States has seen an intense debate about the composition of the federal judiciary. Are judges "activists"? Should they stop "legislating from the bench"? Are they
Early Panel Announcement, Settlement and Adjudication
Federal appellate courts have significant discretion to set the internal policies that govern the appeals process, and they have used that discretion to institute policies designed to combat