Judicial Policymaking in Published and Unpublished Decisions: The Case of Environmental Civil Litigation

By Ringquist, Evan J.; Emmert, Craig E. | Political Research Quarterly, March 1999 | Go to article overview

Judicial Policymaking in Published and Unpublished Decisions: The Case of Environmental Civil Litigation


Ringquist, Evan J., Emmert, Craig E., Political Research Quarterly


While recent research has improved dramatically our understanding of appellate judicial behavior in constitutional and criminal law, we know comparatively little about the majority of the decisions made by the federal judiciary: civil case decisions in federal district courts. Moreover, by relying upon published cases exclusively, this research may misrepresent those forces influencing the majority of judicial decisions. We address these shortcomings by outlining an integrated model of judicial policymaking and using this model to explain civil penalty severity in all environmental protection cases (published and unpublished) concluded in federal district courts from 1974-91. Additive and interactive heteroskedastic unit effect regression models demonstrate that penalty severity in environmental cases is affected by case and defendant characteristics, judicial policy preferences, the surrounding political context, and federal institutional actors. These models also demonstrate that political considerations are especially influential in published case decisions.

Over the past quarter century, scholars have successfully uncovered many systematic factors underlying court decisions. The more we learn about judicial behavior, the more this behavior resembles that of other more traditional policymakers in the American political system. Upon reflection, this conclusion should not be surprising. Judicial decisions are policy decisions in that they allocate resources and values, and contribute significantly to the attainment of policy goals. While substantial bodies of evidence demonstrate that in arriving at their decisions judges consider traditional criteria (e.g., precedent and the facts of the case: Gibson 1978; Segal 1984; Emmert 1992), they also react to pressures from the surrounding socio-political environment (Cook 1977; Giles and Walker 1975; Kritzer 1978). Judges' responses to these stimuli, however, are conditioned by their own policy preferences (Hall and Brace 1996; Segal and Spaeth 1993), and the degree to which each of these elements figures into judicial decision-making is conditional upon the behavior of other institutional actors (Cook 1977; Epstein, Walker, and Dixon 1989).

Though there are exceptions (e.g., Hall and Brace 1992), both judicial politics and public policy scholars have been slow to recognize the potential inherent in these recent developments for building a comprehensive model of judicial policymaking. This oversight has led to several prominent gaps in our understanding of how judicial decisions affect routine policy activities-gaps we hope the present research will begin to fill. First, while decisions of the Supreme Court and federal appellate courts have received close attention, we know less about the decision-making processes and policy implications of decisions made by federal district courts. District court judges, more than their appellate court brethren, engage in the nuts and bolts of policymaking from formation through implementation. Moreover, in their roles as "fact finders," the cognitive processes behind the decisions of district court judges may also differ from those of appellate jurists (Rowland and Carp 1996). Second, the emphasis on criminal and constitutional law in most judicial behavior research overlooks the important policy contributions made by civil law in guiding implementation in regulation, social welfare, and other policy areas. These oversights are particularly troublesome given that increased caseloads, increased opportunities for judicial discretion, and reduced judicial deference to administrative decisions have thrust federal court judges into more prominent policymaking roles (Rowland and Carp 1996; Stewart 1975).

Finally, while the oversights identified above are not trivial, a more serious limitation of current research is the sampling frame within which models of judicial politics are operationalized. Almost without exception, scholars have tested hypotheses regarding judicial behavior by relying upon the available record of published case decisions. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Judicial Policymaking in Published and Unpublished Decisions: The Case of Environmental Civil Litigation
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.