Cited by 152Judicial and Constitutional StudiesLegal processes and jurisprudenceElectoral Systems and Political Participation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bias and Judging

Harris, Allison P., Sen, Maya·2019·Annual Review of Political Science

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

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051617-090650

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 114

  1. 10.1086/666006 · DOI
  2. 10.1017/S0003055400261479 · DOI
  3. Allen DW, 1993, Judicature, 77, 156
  4. 10.1086/467960 · DOI
  5. 10.1017/pan.2016.10 · DOI
  6. 10.1017/S0003055404001315 · DOI
  7. Boyd CL, 2011, Federal district court judge ideology data
  8. 10.1086/670723 · DOI
  9. 10.1177/1065912916663653 · DOI
  10. 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00437.x · DOI
  11. 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00689.x · DOI
  12. 10.1111/0022-3816.00018 · DOI
  13. Chew PK, 2008, Wash. Univ. Law Rev., 86, 1117
  14. 10.1257/pol.20170329 · DOI
  15. 10.1111/ssqu.12376 · DOI
  16. 10.1177/1065912907306467 · DOI
  17. 10.2307/2111544 · DOI
  18. Cox AB, 2008, Columbia Law Rev, 108, 1
  19. Cox AB, 2008, Univ. Chicago Law Rev., 75, 1493
  20. Davis S, 1992, Wisc. Women's Law J., 8, 143
  21. Davis S, 1993, Judicature, 77, 129
  22. 10.1162/003355302760193922 · DOI
  23. Epstein L, 1998, The Choices Justices Make
  24. 10.1146/annurev-polisci-032211-214229 · DOI
  25. Epstein L, 2013, The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice
  26. 10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.08501002.x · DOI
  27. 10.1093/jleo/ewm024 · DOI
  28. 10.1093/jleo/ewh035 · DOI
  29. 10.2307/2129686 · DOI
  30. Frank J, 1930, Law and the Modern Mind
  31. 10.1017/S1537592706060178 · DOI
  32. 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01183.x · DOI
  33. 10.1177/106591290105400307 · DOI
  34. 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
  35. 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00449.x · DOI
  36. Gilligan C, 1982, In a Different Voice
  37. 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
  38. 10.1111/ajps.12118 · DOI
  39. Goldman S, 1968, Wisc. Law Rev., 2, 461
  40. 10.2307/1959082 · DOI
  41. Grey TC, 1983, Univ. Pittsburgh Law Rev., 45, 1
  42. 10.1111/ajps.12187 · DOI
  43. 10.2307/2130930 · DOI
  44. Haire SB, 2015, Diversity Matters: Judicial Policy Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals
  45. 10.1086/670724 · DOI
  46. Harris AP, 2018, Can racial diversity among judges affect sentencing outcomes?
  47. 10.1086/681059 · DOI
  48. Holmes MD, 1993, Soc. Sci. Q., 74, 496
  49. Holmes OW, 1909, The Common Law
  50. 10.1111/0022-3816.00036 · DOI
  51. 10.2307/1372519 · DOI
  52. 10.1080/1554477X.2011.589293 · DOI
  53. 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00325.x · DOI
  54. Kanter RM, 2008, Men and Women of the Corporation
  55. 10.2307/1372457 · DOI
  56. 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00618.x · DOI
  57. Kirkland PA, 2017, Political Behav, 3, 571
  58. 10.2307/1332182 · DOI
  59. 10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.08501001.x · DOI
  60. 10.1093/pan/10.2.134 · DOI
  61. 10.1017/S1537592704040502 · DOI
  62. Martin E, 1999, Albany Law Rev, 63, 1205
  63. Menkel-Meadow C, 1985, Berkeley Women's Law J, 1, 39
  64. Miller WE, 1996, The New American Voter
  65. 10.1177/1532673X13486925 · DOI
  66. 10.1017/S0003055400125985 · DOI
  67. 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
  68. 10.1007/s11109-008-9061-1 · DOI
  69. Peresie JL, 2005, Yale Law J, 114, 1759
  70. Pew Res. Cent., 2017, The partisan divide on political values grows even wider
  71. Pinello DR, 1999, Justice Syst. J., 3, 219
  72. Pinello DR, 2003, Gay Rights and American Law
  73. 10.2307/j.ctvjk2w91 · DOI
  74. 10.2307/1108954 · DOI
  75. 10.2307/1284324 · DOI
  76. 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-085032 · DOI
  77. 10.1080/21565503.2014.940547 · DOI
  78. Rohde DW, 1976, Supreme Court Decision Making
  79. Roper Cent. Public Opin. Res., 2008, How groups voted in 2008
  80. Roper Cent. Public Opin. Res., 2016, How groups voted in 2016
  81. 10.2307/4099370 · DOI
  82. 10.1086/425597 · DOI
  83. 10.1093/jleo/ewm002 · DOI
  84. 10.1002/j.1538-165X.2004.tb00534.x · DOI
  85. 10.1017/S0022381609990491 · DOI
  86. Schubert GA, 1959, Quantitative Analysis of Judicial Behavior
  87. 10.2307/2111139 · DOI
  88. 10.1177/106591290005300107 · DOI
  89. 10.2307/1962405 · DOI
  90. Segal JA, 1993, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model
  91. 10.1017/CBO9780511615696 · DOI
  92. 10.1162/DAED_a_00176 · DOI
  93. 10.1086/674579 · DOI
  94. Sen M, 2014, Judicature, 98, 46
  95. 10.1086/682691 · DOI
  96. Sen M, 2017, Wisc. Law Rev., 2017, 367
  97. 10.1111/jels.12162 · DOI
  98. 10.1086/268958 · DOI
  99. 10.2307/1072973 · DOI
  100. 10.1177/1065912911421011 · DOI
  101. 10.2307/2647514 · DOI
  102. Sotomayor S, 2002, Berkeley Raza Law J, 13, 87
  103. 10.2307/2109268 · DOI
  104. 10.2307/3053666 · DOI
  105. 10.1111/0038-4941.00057 · DOI
  106. Sunstein CR, 2006, Are Judges Political?
  107. 10.2307/1961370 · DOI
  108. 10.1037/0022-3514.48.5.1227 · DOI
  109. 10.2307/2126926 · DOI
  110. Ulmer SS, 1962, J. Public Law, 11, 352
  111. 10.2307/2130898 · DOI
  112. Weinberg JD, 2011, Univ. Southern Calif. Law Rev., 85, 313
  113. 10.2307/2111313 · DOI
  114. 10.1017/S0022381610000630 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 152

Metadata

Authors
Harris, A. P., & Sen, M.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
Annual Review of Political Science
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