Website proposal: ‘Courts and Policy’ Goals Courts & Policy is inspired by the belief that judicial studies can and should improve public policy making in relation to the roles and responsibilities of the judiciary and courts, but that too little scholarly literature is available in this important area (although we aim only to publish material… Continue reading New article

This study seeks to determine if the partisan affiliation (Democrat or Republican) of a plaintiff challenging a local, state, or federal campaign finance policy influences the case votes of U.S. district court judges. Using an original database of campaign finance cases decided between 1971 and 2007, I find that judges do not systematically favor challenges… Continue reading Article: ‘Litigant Partisan Identity and Challenges to Campaign Finance Policies: An Examination of U.S. District Court Decisions, 1971–2007’, by Kyle C. Kopko

This article investigates one causal mechanism that may explain why female judges on the federal appellate courts are more likely than men to side with plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases. To test whether personal experiences with inequality are related to empathetic responses to the claims of female plaintiffs, we focus on the first wave of… Continue reading Article: ‘Trailblazers and Those That Followed – Personal Experiences, Gender, and Judicial Empathy’, by Laura P. Moyer and Susan B. Haire