The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bias and Judging
Abstract
How do we know whether judges of different backgrounds are biased? We review the substantial political science literature on judicial decision making, paying close attention to how judges' demographics and ideology can influence or structure their decision making. As the research demonstrates, characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and gender can sometimes predict judicial decision making in limited kinds of cases; however, the literature also suggests that these characteristics are far less important in shaping or predicting outcomes than is ideology (or partisanship), which in turn correlates closely with gender, race, and ethnicity. This leads us to conclude that assuming judges of different backgrounds are biased because they rule differently is questionable. Given that the application of the law rarely provides one objectively correct answer, it is no surprise that judges' decisions vary according to their personal backgrounds and, more importantly, according to their ideology.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Even “judges’ decisions vary according to their personal backgrounds and, more importantly, according to their ideology” (Harris & Sen, 2019, p. 241).”
From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Harris & Sen, 2019
Citations
Cites
THE CENTRALITY OF RACE IN AMERICAN POLITICS
Hutchings, V. L., & Valentino, N. A. (2004) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104859 · Cited by 493
Research works printed but not linked: 114
- 10.1086/666006 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0003055400261479 · DOI
- Allen DW, 1993, Judicature, 77, 156
- 10.1086/467960 · DOI
- 10.1017/pan.2016.10 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0003055404001315 · DOI
- Boyd CL, 2011, Federal district court judge ideology data
- 10.1086/670723 · DOI
- 10.1177/1065912916663653 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00437.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00689.x · DOI
- 10.1111/0022-3816.00018 · DOI
- Chew PK, 2008, Wash. Univ. Law Rev., 86, 1117
- 10.1257/pol.20170329 · DOI
- 10.1111/ssqu.12376 · DOI
- 10.1177/1065912907306467 · DOI
- 10.2307/2111544 · DOI
- Cox AB, 2008, Columbia Law Rev, 108, 1
- Cox AB, 2008, Univ. Chicago Law Rev., 75, 1493
- Davis S, 1992, Wisc. Women's Law J., 8, 143
- Davis S, 1993, Judicature, 77, 129
- 10.1162/003355302760193922 · DOI
- Epstein L, 1998, The Choices Justices Make
- 10.1146/annurev-polisci-032211-214229 · DOI
- Epstein L, 2013, The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice
- 10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.08501002.x · DOI
- 10.1093/jleo/ewm024 · DOI
- 10.1093/jleo/ewh035 · DOI
- 10.2307/2129686 · DOI
- Frank J, 1930, Law and the Modern Mind
- 10.1017/S1537592706060178 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01183.x · DOI
- 10.1177/106591290105400307 · DOI
- Gill RD, Kagan M, Marouf F. 2017. The impact of maleness on judicial decision making: masculinity, chivalry, and immigration appeals. Politics Groups Identities , 1–20 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00449.x · DOI
- Gilligan C, 1982, In a Different Voice
- Gleason SA, Jones JJ, McBean JR. 2018. The role of gender norms in judicial decision-making at the US Supreme Court: the case of male and female justices. Am. Politics Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x18766466 · DOI
- 10.1111/ajps.12118 · DOI
- Goldman S, 1968, Wisc. Law Rev., 2, 461
- 10.2307/1959082 · DOI
- Grey TC, 1983, Univ. Pittsburgh Law Rev., 45, 1
- 10.1111/ajps.12187 · DOI
- 10.2307/2130930 · DOI
- Haire SB, 2015, Diversity Matters: Judicial Policy Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals
- 10.1086/670724 · DOI
- Harris AP, 2018, Can racial diversity among judges affect sentencing outcomes?
- 10.1086/681059 · DOI
- Holmes MD, 1993, Soc. Sci. Q., 74, 496
- Holmes OW, 1909, The Common Law
- 10.1111/0022-3816.00036 · DOI
- 10.2307/1372519 · DOI
- 10.1080/1554477X.2011.589293 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00325.x · DOI
- Kanter RM, 2008, Men and Women of the Corporation
- 10.2307/1372457 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00618.x · DOI
- Kirkland PA, 2017, Political Behav, 3, 571
- 10.2307/1332182 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.08501001.x · DOI
- 10.1093/pan/10.2.134 · DOI
- 10.1017/S1537592704040502 · DOI
- Martin E, 1999, Albany Law Rev, 63, 1205
- Menkel-Meadow C, 1985, Berkeley Women's Law J, 1, 39
- Miller WE, 1996, The New American Voter
- 10.1177/1532673X13486925 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0003055400125985 · DOI
- Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor., 2009, Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of Hon. Sonia Sotomayor, to Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
- 10.1007/s11109-008-9061-1 · DOI
- Peresie JL, 2005, Yale Law J, 114, 1759
- Pew Res. Cent., 2017, The partisan divide on political values grows even wider
- Pinello DR, 1999, Justice Syst. J., 3, 219
- Pinello DR, 2003, Gay Rights and American Law
- 10.2307/j.ctvjk2w91 · DOI
- 10.2307/1108954 · DOI
- 10.2307/1284324 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-085032 · DOI
- 10.1080/21565503.2014.940547 · DOI
- Rohde DW, 1976, Supreme Court Decision Making
- Roper Cent. Public Opin. Res., 2008, How groups voted in 2008
- Roper Cent. Public Opin. Res., 2016, How groups voted in 2016
- 10.2307/4099370 · DOI
- 10.1086/425597 · DOI
- 10.1093/jleo/ewm002 · DOI
- 10.1002/j.1538-165X.2004.tb00534.x · DOI
- 10.1017/S0022381609990491 · DOI
- Schubert GA, 1959, Quantitative Analysis of Judicial Behavior
- 10.2307/2111139 · DOI
- 10.1177/106591290005300107 · DOI
- 10.2307/1962405 · DOI
- Segal JA, 1993, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model
- 10.1017/CBO9780511615696 · DOI
- 10.1162/DAED_a_00176 · DOI
- 10.1086/674579 · DOI
- Sen M, 2014, Judicature, 98, 46
- 10.1086/682691 · DOI
- Sen M, 2017, Wisc. Law Rev., 2017, 367
- 10.1111/jels.12162 · DOI
- 10.1086/268958 · DOI
- 10.2307/1072973 · DOI
- 10.1177/1065912911421011 · DOI
- 10.2307/2647514 · DOI
- Sotomayor S, 2002, Berkeley Raza Law J, 13, 87
- 10.2307/2109268 · DOI
- 10.2307/3053666 · DOI
- 10.1111/0038-4941.00057 · DOI
- Sunstein CR, 2006, Are Judges Political?
- 10.2307/1961370 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.48.5.1227 · DOI
- 10.2307/2126926 · DOI
- Ulmer SS, 1962, J. Public Law, 11, 352
- 10.2307/2130898 · DOI
- Weinberg JD, 2011, Univ. Southern Calif. Law Rev., 85, 313
- 10.2307/2111313 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0022381610000630 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects
Dror, I. E. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15040490 · Cited by 29
Prosecuting from the bench? Examining sources of pro‐prosecution bias in judges
Berryessa, C. M., Dror, I. E., & McCormack, C. J. B. (2023) · Legal and Criminological Psychology · doi:10.1111/lcrp.12226 · Cited by 28
No Justice, No Peace: Political Science Perspectives on the American Carceral State
Harris, A. P., Walker, H. L., & Eckhouse, L. (2020) · The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics · doi:10.1017/rep.2020.21 · Cited by 15
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Harris, A. P., & Sen, M.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- Annual Review of Political Science
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2019-05-11
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 241-259
- ISSN
- 1094-2939 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-1577
- OpenAlex
- W2945849932
- Cited by
- 152
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 8.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Review of Political Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Judicial and Constitutional Studies
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Keywords
- judicial decision-making, judicial bias, judicial ideology, partisanship, race and ethnicity, gender, judicial diversity, judicial behavior
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review