Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T12:25:11.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expertise, Experience, and Ideology on Specialized Courts: The Case of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Banks Miller  and
Brett Curry
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What roles do prior expertise and accumulated experience play in shaping ideologically consistent voting on a specialized court? Using a dataset of obviousness patent cases from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit spanning 1997–2007, we show that prior expertise enhances the influence of ideology on judicial decisionmaking, but that accumulated experience does not. In addition, we build on previous work and show that ideology is a factor in decisionmaking in technical areas of law, contrary to the received wisdom on patent cases.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 839 - 864
Copyright
© 2009 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank Larry Baum, Rich Pacelle, and Nathan Cristler for their close readings of this manuscript and thoughtful comments that greatly improved our drafts. Further, Carroll Seron and the anonymous reviewers have improved our work considerably. An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the 2008 Southern Political Science Association Conference in New Orleans, where Stefanie Lindquist provided valuable feedback.

References

References

Allison, John R., & Lemley, Mark A. (1998) “Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents,” 26 American Intellectual Property Law Association Q. J. 185–276.Google Scholar
Allison, John R. (2000) “How Federal Judges Vote in Patent Validity Cases,” 27 Florida State University Law Rev. 745–66.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (1977) “Judicial Specialization, Litigant Influence, and Substantive Policy: The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,” 11 Law & Society Rev. 823–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (1990) “Specializing the Federal Courts: Neutral Reforms or Efforts to Shape Judicial Policy,” 74 Judicature 217–24.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (1994) “Specialization and Authority: The Supreme Court and Lower Federal Courts,” 46 Political Research Q. 693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (2006) Judges and Their Audiences. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen (1995) “Political Control Versus Expertise: Congressional Choices About Administrative Procedures,” 89 American Political Science Rev. 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, et al. (2006) “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analysis,” 14 Political Analysis 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul (2008) “The Consistency of Judicial Choice,” 70 J. of Politics 861–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip (1964) The Nature of Belief Systems Among Mass Publics, in Apter, D., ed., Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Ducat, Craig R., & Dudley, Robert L. (1987) “Dimensions Underlying Economic Policymaking in the Early and Later Burger Court,” 49 J. of Politics 521–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudley, Robert L., & Ducat, Craig R. (1986) “The Burger Court and Economic Liberalism,” 39 The Western Political Q. 236–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, David, & O'Halloran, Sharon (1994) “Administrative Procedures, Information, and Agency Discretion,” 38 American J. of Political Science 697–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Segal, Jeffrey A. (2000) “Measuring Issue Salience,” 44 American J. of Political Science 66–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, et al. (2007) “The Judicial Common Space,” 23 J. of Law, Economics and Organization 303–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farhang, Sean, & Wawro, Gregory (2004) “Institutional Dynamics on the U.S. Court of Appeals: Minority Representation Under Panel Decision Making,” 20 J. of Law, Economics, & Organization 299–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federico, Christopher M., & Schneider, Monica C. (2007) “Political Expertise and the Use of Ideology: Moderating the Effects of Evaluative Motivation,” 71 Public Opinion Q. 221–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, Micheal W., et al. (2001) “Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas,” 54 Political Research Q.y 623–41.Google Scholar
Goldman, Sheldon (1966) “Voting Behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals, 1961–1964,” 60 American Political Science Rev. 364–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Sheldon (1975) “Voting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals Revisited,” 69 American Political Science Rev. 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenfield, Michael S. (1992) “Recombinant DNA Technology: A Science Struggling with the Patent Law,” 44 Stanford Law Rev. 1051–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhouse, Linda (2005) Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun's Supreme Court Journey. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
Gryski, Gerard S., & Main, Eleanor C. (1986) “Social Backgrounds as Predictors of Votes on State Courts of Last Resort: The Case of Sex Discrimination,” 39 Western Political Q. 528–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagle, Timothy M. (1993) “‘Freshman Effects’ for Supreme Court Justices,” 37 American J. of Political Science 1142–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagner, Paul R., & Pierce, John C. (1983) “Levels of Conceptualization and Political Belief Consistency,” 2 Micropolitics 311–49.Google Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann, & Brace, Paul (1994) “The Vicissitudes of Death by Decree: Forces Influencing Capital Punishment Decisionmaking in State Supreme Courts,” 75 Social Science Q. 136–51.Google Scholar
Hansen, Wendy, et al. (1995) “Specialized Courts, Bureaucratic Agencies, and the Politics of U.S. Trade Policy,” 39 American J. of Political Science 529–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heck, Edward V., & Hall, Melinda Gann (1981) “Bloc Voting and the Freshman Justice Revisited,” 43 J. of Politics 852–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., et al. (2003) “Acclimation Effects on the United States Courts of Appeals,” 84 Social Science Q. 792–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., et al. (2004) “Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” 48 American J. of Political Science 123–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., et al. (2006) Judging on a Collegial Court. Charlottesville, VA: Univ. of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Howard, Robert M. (2005) “Comparing the Decision Making of Specialized Courts and General Courts: An Exploration of Tax Decisions,” 26 Justice System J. 135–48.Google Scholar
Howard, Robert M., & Nixon, David C. (2003) “Local Control of the Bureaucracy: Federal Appeals Courts, Ideology, and the Internal Revenue Service,” 13 Washington University J. of Law & Policy 233–56.Google Scholar
Judd, Charles M., & Downing, James W. (1990) “Political Expertise and the Development of Attitude Consistency,” 8 Social Cognition 104–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judd, Charles M., & Krosnick, Jon A. (1989) “The Structural Bases of Consistency Among Political Attitudes: Effects of Expertise and Attitude Importance,” in Pratkanis, A. R. et al., eds., Attitude Structure and Function. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Judd, Charles M., & Milburn, Michael A. (1980) “The Structure of Attitude Systems in the General Public: Comparison of a Structural Equation Model,” 45 American Sociological Rev. 627–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., & Sears, David O. (1985) “Public Opinion and Political Action,” in Lindzey, G., & Aronson, E., eds., Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd ed, Vol. 2. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Klein, David E., & Mitchell, Gregory, eds. (forthcoming) The Psychology of Judicial Decision-Making. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith (1991) Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. (1990) “Expertise and Political Psychology,” 8 Social Cognition 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landes, William M., & Posner, Richard A. (2003) The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Legomsky, Stephen (1990) Specialized Justice: Courts, Administrative Tribunals, and a Cross-National Theory of Specialization. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, Stefanie A., & Spill Solberg, Rorie (2007) “Judicial Review in the Rehnquist and Burger Courts: Explaining Justices' Responses to Constitutional Challenges,” 60 Political Research Q. 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandel, Gregory N. (2006) “Patently Non-Obvious: Empirical Demonstration That Hindsight Bias Renders Patent Decisions Irrational,” 67 Ohio State Law J. 1391–463.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, & Poole, Keith T. (1995) “Veto Power and Legislation: An Empirical Analysis of Executive-Legislative Bargaining from 1961–1986,” 11 J. of Law, Economics and Organization 282–312.Google Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen M., & Pinney, Neil (1990) “The Effects of General and Domain-Specific Expertise on Political Memory and Judgment,” 8 Social Cognition 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Kimberly (2000) “Judges, Juries and Patent Cases: An Empirical Peek Inside the Black Box,” 99 Michigan Law Rev. 365–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Kimberly (2001) “Are District Court Judges Equipped to Resolve Patent Cases?,” 15 Harvard J. of Law and Technology 1–40.Google Scholar
Nie, Norman H., & With Anderson, Kristie (1974) “Mass Belief Systems Revisited: Political Change and Attitude Change,” 36 J. of Politics 540–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nie, Norman H., et al. (1979) The Changing American Voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacelle, Richard L. Jr., et al. (2007) “Keepers of the Covenant or Platonic Guardians? Decision Making on the U.S. Supreme Court,” 35 American Politics Research 694–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, John C., & Hagner, Paul R. (1980) “Changes in the Public's Political Thinking: The Watershed Years, 1956–1968,” in Pierce, J. C. & Sullivan, J. L., eds., The Electorate Reconsidered. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, & Rosenthal, Howard (1997) Congress: A Political-Economic History of Role Call Voting. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Posavac, Steven S., et al. (1997) “Considering the Best Choice: Effects of the Salience and Accessibility of Alternatives on Attitude-Decision Consistency,” 73 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 253–61.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. (1983) “Will the Federal Courts of Appeal Survive Until 1984? An Essay on Delegation and Specialization of the Judicial Function,” 56 Southern California Law Rev. 761–91.Google Scholar
Pritchett, C. Herman (1954) Civil Liberties and the Vinson Court. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Revesz, Richard A. (1997) “Environmental Regulation, Ideology and the D.C. Circuit,” 83 Virginia Law Rev. 1717–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Neil (2001) “The Supreme Court and ‘Boring’ Cases,” 4 Green Bag 401–7.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W., & Spaeth, Harold J. (1976) Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Sag, Matthew J., et al. (2009) “Ideology & Exceptionalism in Intellectual Property—An Empirical Study,” http://ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1125360 (accessed 8 Sept. 2009).Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. (1984) “Predicting Supreme Court Cases Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases (1962–1981),” 78 American Political Science Rev. 891–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. (1986) “Supreme Court Justices as Human Decision Makers: An Individual-Level Analysis of the Search and Seizure Cases,” 47 J. of Politics 938–55.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Spaeth, Harold J. (2002) The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seron, Carroll (1978) Judicial Reorganization: The Politics of Reform in the Federal Bankruptcy Court. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Simon, Dan (2004) “A Third View of the Black Box: Cognitive Coherence in Legal Decision Making,” 71 University of Chicago Law Rev. 511–86.Google Scholar
Snyder, Eloise C. (1958) “The Supreme Court as a Small Group,” 36 Social Forces 232–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald, et al. (1994) “A Reappraisal of Diversification in the Federal Courts: Gender Effects in the Courts of Appeals,” 56 J. of Politics 425–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staudt, Nancy, et al. (2006) “The Ideological Component of Judging in the Taxation Context,” 84 Washington University Law Rev. 1797–821.Google Scholar
Sullivan, E. Thomas, & Thompson, Robert B. (2004) “The Supreme Court and Private Law: The Vanishing Importance of Securities and Antitrust,” 53 Emory Law J. 1571–644.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R., et al. (2004) “Ideological Voting on Federal Courts of Appeals: A Preliminary Investigation,” 90 Virginia Law Rev. 301–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney (1970) “Dissent Behavior and the Social Background of Supreme Court Justices,” 32 J. of Politics 580–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unah, Isaac (1997) “Specialized Courts of Appeals' Review of Bureaucratic Actions and the Politics of Protectionism,” 50 Political Research Q. 851–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unah, Isaac (1998) The Courts of International Trade: Judicial Specialization, Expertise, and Bureaucratic Policy-Making. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unah, Isaac (2001) “The Incidence and Structure of Conflict on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,” 23 Law and Policy 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Thomas G., & Barrow, Deborah J. (1985) “The Diversification of the Federal Bench: Policy and Process Ramifications,” 47 J. of Politics 596–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Sandra L., et al. (1998) “‘Acclimation Effects’ for Supreme Court Justices: A Cross-Validation, 1888–1940,” 42 American J. of Political Science 690–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yarbrough, Tinsley E. (2005) David Hackett Souter: Traditional Republican on the Rehnquist Court. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Zaller, John (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zorn, Chris (2006) “Comparing GEE and ‘Robust’ Standard Errors for Conditionally Dependent Data,” 59 Political Research Q. 329–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cases Cited

Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970).Google Scholar
Eli Lilly v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, 471 F.3d 1369 (2007).Google Scholar
KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).Google Scholar

Statute Cited

Conditions for Patentability. 35 U.S.C. § 103.Google Scholar