Edited by Michael P. Fix, Professor, Department of Political Science, Georgia State University and Matthew D. Montgomery, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Texas Christian University, US

• Contents1 Introduction to the Research Handbook on Judicial Politics 1Michael P. Fix and Matthew D. MontgomeryPART I JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING2 US Supreme Court decision making in Intellectual Property rights (1954–2022) 14Isaac Unah and Sabrina Zi Tong Peng3 Judicial decision making on lower federal courts 35Hayley Munir, Michael Catalano and Wendy L. Martinek4 Judicial decision making on US state courts 50David A. Hughes5 Studying judicial decision-making beyond western democracies:lessons from Latin America 61Mishella Romo Rivas and Raul Sanchez-Urribarri6 Gender and racial influences on judicial decision making 85Susan Haire, Alyson Hendricks-Benton, and Vanisha KudumuriPART II JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS7 The nomination and confirmation of US Supreme Court Justices 101Imtashal Tariq and Paul M. Collins, Jr.8 Lower federal court confirmations 115Amy Steigerwalt and Morgan Smith9 Comparative judicial governance 129Gabriela Aída Cantú Ramos and Julio Ríos Figueroa10 Race and gender in judicial selection in the United States 143Matthew E. Baker, Christina L. Boyd, Aidan N. González, and Karson A.PenningtonPART III VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL CONSTRAINTS ONJUDICIAL BEHAVIOR11 The President and the Court 158Natalie C. Rogol12 Congress and the courts 172Albert H. Rivero and Ellen M. Key13 Delegation and deference: federal judicial decision-making andadministrative agencies 185Jennifer Hickey, Gbemende E. Johnson, and Jaylin Small14 State high courts and horizontal constraints 201Meghan E. Leonard15 Hierarchical influences on judicial decision-making in the United States 212Benjamin J. Kassow16 A bottom-up approach to lower court influence on the Supreme Courtof the United Kingdom 223Jennifer Bowie, Ali S. Masood, Elisha Carol Savchak, Susan W. Johnson,Lauren Oligino, and Adam Webster17 “Riding a bicycle is frivolous behavior”: sources of judicial deferencein Turkey 237Onur BakinerPART IV AUDIENCE CONSIDERATIONS AND EXTRAJUDICIALCOMMUNICATIONS18 Judicial audiences 253Ryan J. Owens and Marcy Shieh19 Follow the court: examining judicial homestyle through extrajudicialcommunications on state court Twitter 277Cayleb B. Stives and Todd A. Curry20 Preserving institutional legitimacy through openness: the SupremeCourt of Canada and Chief Justice Wagner 287Tamara A. Small and Kate Puddister21 Judicial communication, collegial education, cultural competency, andthe significance of state judicial diversity 302Taneisha Nicole Means, Joseph P. Kelly, and Simon LaClair22 Judicial communication beyond the US 321Jay N. KrehbielPART V PUBLIC OPINION AND LEGITIMACY23 Toward a theory of “the public” in research on the relationship betweenpublic opinion and Supreme Court outcomes 338Brandon L. Bartels24 The effect of Supreme Court fecisions on public opinion 356Nicholas D. Conway, Alison Higgins Merrill, and Joseph Daniel Ura25 Understanding the US Supreme Court’s legitimacy 378Michael J. Nelson, Taran Samarth, and Amanda Driscoll26 Law and social movements 392Erin Mayo-AdamPART VI METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN JUDICIAL POLITICS RESEARCH27 Measuring judicial ideology 407Chad Westerland28 Comparative methods for measuring judicial ideology and behavior 423Udi Sommer and Roee Braverman29 Law, text, and judicial politics 436Morgan L.W. Hazelton30 Which are the main characteristics determining sentence severity? Anempirical exploration of shoplifting offences using spike-and-slab models 450Jose Pina-Sánchez, Mandeep K. Dhami, and John Paul Gosling

‘Fix and Montgomery have accomplished what, so far, judicial scholars have not. They bring together a variety of scholars who analyze courts within and beyond the U.S. and who employ a variety of methodological approaches to help scholars and court watchers alike better understand judges, the judicial process, and judicial decision making. Their efforts, and their team of writers, are highly impressive and should be commended for their addition to the field.’

Edited by Michael P. Fix, Professor, Department of Political Science, Georgia State University and Matthew D. Montgomery, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Texas Christian University, US

• Contents1 Introduction to the Research Handbook on Judicial Politics 1Michael P. Fix and Matthew D. MontgomeryPART I JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING2 US Supreme Court decision making in Intellectual Property rights (1954–2022) 14Isaac Unah and Sabrina Zi Tong Peng3 Judicial decision making on lower federal courts 35Hayley Munir, Michael Catalano and Wendy L. Martinek4 Judicial decision making on US state courts 50David A. Hughes5 Studying judicial decision-making beyond western democracies:lessons from Latin America 61Mishella Romo Rivas and Raul Sanchez-Urribarri6 Gender and racial influences on judicial decision making 85Susan Haire, Alyson Hendricks-Benton, and Vanisha KudumuriPART II JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS7 The nomination and confirmation of US Supreme Court Justices 101Imtashal Tariq and Paul M. Collins, Jr.8 Lower federal court confirmations 115Amy Steigerwalt and Morgan Smith9 Comparative judicial governance 129Gabriela Aída Cantú Ramos and Julio Ríos Figueroa10 Race and gender in judicial selection in the United States 143Matthew E. Baker, Christina L. Boyd, Aidan N. González, and Karson A.PenningtonPART III VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL CONSTRAINTS ONJUDICIAL BEHAVIOR11 The President and the Court 158Natalie C. Rogol12 Congress and the courts 172Albert H. Rivero and Ellen M. Key13 Delegation and deference: federal judicial decision-making andadministrative agencies 185Jennifer Hickey, Gbemende E. Johnson, and Jaylin Small14 State high courts and horizontal constraints 201Meghan E. Leonard15 Hierarchical influences on judicial decision-making in the United States 212Benjamin J. Kassow16 A bottom-up approach to lower court influence on the Supreme Courtof the United Kingdom 223Jennifer Bowie, Ali S. Masood, Elisha Carol Savchak, Susan W. Johnson,Lauren Oligino, and Adam Webster17 “Riding a bicycle is frivolous behavior”: sources of judicial deferencein Turkey 237Onur BakinerPART IV AUDIENCE CONSIDERATIONS AND EXTRAJUDICIALCOMMUNICATIONS18 Judicial audiences 253Ryan J. Owens and Marcy Shieh19 Follow the court: examining judicial homestyle through extrajudicialcommunications on state court Twitter 277Cayleb B. Stives and Todd A. Curry20 Preserving institutional legitimacy through openness: the SupremeCourt of Canada and Chief Justice Wagner 287Tamara A. Small and Kate Puddister21 Judicial communication, collegial education, cultural competency, andthe significance of state judicial diversity 302Taneisha Nicole Means, Joseph P. Kelly, and Simon LaClair22 Judicial communication beyond the US 321Jay N. KrehbielPART V PUBLIC OPINION AND LEGITIMACY23 Toward a theory of “the public” in research on the relationship betweenpublic opinion and Supreme Court outcomes 338Brandon L. Bartels24 The effect of Supreme Court fecisions on public opinion 356Nicholas D. Conway, Alison Higgins Merrill, and Joseph Daniel Ura25 Understanding the US Supreme Court’s legitimacy 378Michael J. Nelson, Taran Samarth, and Amanda Driscoll26 Law and social movements 392Erin Mayo-AdamPART VI METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN JUDICIAL POLITICS RESEARCH27 Measuring judicial ideology 407Chad Westerland28 Comparative methods for measuring judicial ideology and behavior 423Udi Sommer and Roee Braverman29 Law, text, and judicial politics 436Morgan L.W. Hazelton30 Which are the main characteristics determining sentence severity? Anempirical exploration of shoplifting offences using spike-and-slab models 450Jose Pina-Sánchez, Mandeep K. Dhami, and John Paul Gosling

‘Fix and Montgomery have accomplished what, so far, judicial scholars have not. They bring together a variety of scholars who analyze courts within and beyond the U.S. and who employ a variety of methodological approaches to help scholars and court watchers alike better understand judges, the judicial process, and judicial decision making. Their efforts, and their team of writers, are highly impressive and should be commended for their addition to the field.’

Edited by Michael P. Fix, Professor, Department of Political Science, Georgia State University and Matthew D. Montgomery, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Texas Christian University, US

• Contents1 Introduction to the Research Handbook on Judicial Politics 1Michael P. Fix and Matthew D. MontgomeryPART I JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING2 US Supreme Court decision making in Intellectual Property rights (1954–2022) 14Isaac Unah and Sabrina Zi Tong Peng3 Judicial decision making on lower federal courts 35Hayley Munir, Michael Catalano and Wendy L. Martinek4 Judicial decision making on US state courts 50David A. Hughes5 Studying judicial decision-making beyond western democracies:lessons from Latin America 61Mishella Romo Rivas and Raul Sanchez-Urribarri6 Gender and racial influences on judicial decision making 85Susan Haire, Alyson Hendricks-Benton, and Vanisha KudumuriPART II JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS7 The nomination and confirmation of US Supreme Court Justices 101Imtashal Tariq and Paul M. Collins, Jr.8 Lower federal court confirmations 115Amy Steigerwalt and Morgan Smith9 Comparative judicial governance 129Gabriela Aída Cantú Ramos and Julio Ríos Figueroa10 Race and gender in judicial selection in the United States 143Matthew E. Baker, Christina L. Boyd, Aidan N. González, and Karson A.PenningtonPART III VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL CONSTRAINTS ONJUDICIAL BEHAVIOR11 The President and the Court 158Natalie C. Rogol12 Congress and the courts 172Albert H. Rivero and Ellen M. Key13 Delegation and deference: federal judicial decision-making andadministrative agencies 185Jennifer Hickey, Gbemende E. Johnson, and Jaylin Small14 State high courts and horizontal constraints 201Meghan E. Leonard15 Hierarchical influences on judicial decision-making in the United States 212Benjamin J. Kassow16 A bottom-up approach to lower court influence on the Supreme Courtof the United Kingdom 223Jennifer Bowie, Ali S. Masood, Elisha Carol Savchak, Susan W. Johnson,Lauren Oligino, and Adam Webster17 “Riding a bicycle is frivolous behavior”: sources of judicial deferencein Turkey 237Onur BakinerPART IV AUDIENCE CONSIDERATIONS AND EXTRAJUDICIALCOMMUNICATIONS18 Judicial audiences 253Ryan J. Owens and Marcy Shieh19 Follow the court: examining judicial homestyle through extrajudicialcommunications on state court Twitter 277Cayleb B. Stives and Todd A. Curry20 Preserving institutional legitimacy through openness: the SupremeCourt of Canada and Chief Justice Wagner 287Tamara A. Small and Kate Puddister21 Judicial communication, collegial education, cultural competency, andthe significance of state judicial diversity 302Taneisha Nicole Means, Joseph P. Kelly, and Simon LaClair22 Judicial communication beyond the US 321Jay N. KrehbielPART V PUBLIC OPINION AND LEGITIMACY23 Toward a theory of “the public” in research on the relationship betweenpublic opinion and Supreme Court outcomes 338Brandon L. Bartels24 The effect of Supreme Court fecisions on public opinion 356Nicholas D. Conway, Alison Higgins Merrill, and Joseph Daniel Ura25 Understanding the US Supreme Court’s legitimacy 378Michael J. Nelson, Taran Samarth, and Amanda Driscoll26 Law and social movements 392Erin Mayo-AdamPART VI METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN JUDICIAL POLITICS RESEARCH27 Measuring judicial ideology 407Chad Westerland28 Comparative methods for measuring judicial ideology and behavior 423Udi Sommer and Roee Braverman29 Law, text, and judicial politics 436Morgan L.W. Hazelton30 Which are the main characteristics determining sentence severity? Anempirical exploration of shoplifting offences using spike-and-slab models 450Jose Pina-Sánchez, Mandeep K. Dhami, and John Paul Gosling

‘Fix and Montgomery have accomplished what, so far, judicial scholars have not. They bring together a variety of scholars who analyze courts within and beyond the U.S. and who employ a variety of methodological approaches to help scholars and court watchers alike better understand judges, the judicial process, and judicial decision making. Their efforts, and their team of writers, are highly impressive and should be commended for their addition to the field.’