Journal of Empirical Legal Studies最新文献

A New Source of Data on Class Action Settlements: The Department of Justice's Class Action Fairness Act Log 集体诉讼和解的新数据来源：司法部的集体诉讼公平法案日志

IF 1.1 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2026-08-05 Epub Date: 2026-06-05 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70035

Brian T. Fitzpatrick

{"title":"A New Source of Data on Class Action Settlements: The Department of Justice's Class Action Fairness Act Log","authors":"Brian T. Fitzpatrick","doi":"10.1111/jels.70035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70035","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Studies of class action settlements have been notoriously difficult because of the logistical burden of assembling datasets from district court orders. This is especially true for non-securities settlements. Moreover, even when they have been undertaken, they have been of unknown representativeness. Yet, since the enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), defendants have been required to send a notice to the United States Department of Justice every time they settled a class action, lest the settlement not be binding. These notices therefore have the potential to overcome many of the challenges and limitations of past catalogs of settlements. This paper is the first to assess the efficacy of the Department's CAFA notices to study class action settlements. Using Freedom of Information Act requests, I obtained a log the Department keeps of CAFA notices. Although the log contains thousands of entries and many more settlements per year than any prior dataset, I find that the log is unpredictably incomplete. This is especially apparent for securities class actions, but appears to be true of non-securities class actions as well. As such, the log will not improve the representativeness of class action settlement studies. But the log will mitigate the logistical burden of creating datasets and therefore should improve the frequency of settlement studies.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 3","pages":"426-434"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148695728","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

In Memoriam: Marc Galanter 纪念：马克·加兰特

IF 1.1 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2026-08-05 Epub Date: 2026-05-31 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70037

Jeffrey Rachlinski

引用次数: 0

Judicial Decision-Making in Free Exercise Cases: The Effect of Legal Standards, Judge Party, and Shared Religion 自由行使案件中的司法决策：法律标准、法官一方和共同宗教的影响

IF 1.1 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2026-08-05 Epub Date: 2026-07-02 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70038

Jonathan Hensley

{"title":"Judicial Decision-Making in Free Exercise Cases: The Effect of Legal Standards, Judge Party, and Shared Religion","authors":"Jonathan Hensley","doi":"10.1111/jels.70038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70038","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Free Exercise of Religion claims occupy an especially interesting place for those who study judicial decision-making, in that one regularly sees the same or very similar claims judged by significantly different legal standards. An individual who claims their free exercise rights are being violated may claim the protection of the Free Exercise clause, but the Supreme Court's interpretation thereof now provides that a neutral, generally applicable law which burdens free exercise rights does not run afoul of the clause. Many claimants resort to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or, in the case of prisoners, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. These laws impose a “strict scrutiny” standard which should make claimants more likely to prevail. This paper seeks to answer a number of research questions about religious freedom claims, while making direct comparisons between how cases are decided using the Free Exercise Clause and RFRA/RLUIPA. I use a dataset of all judicial votes in federal circuit and district court religious freedom claims from 2006 to 2015. I first find that, everything else being equal, judges are more likely to vote in favor of claimants asserting a RFRA or RLUIPA claim than a Free Exercise clause claim. Then, I examine the role of judge party in decision-making. I would expect Republican judges to favor Evangelical Christian and Catholic groups, and Democratic liberal judges to favor minority religions. I also expect judge party to make more of a difference in RFRA/RLUIPA claims, where the strict scrutiny standard allows judges more room to favor claimants. However, I find that judge party has no statistically significant effect on either type of claim. Finally, I confirm previous findings that judges are more likely to vote in favor of claimants from the same religious background, but that this is primarily true for Catholic and some Jewish claimants.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 3","pages":"347-358"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148695800","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Expert Asymmetry: Evidence From Securities Litigation 专家不对称：来自证券诉讼的证据

IF 1.1 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2026-08-05 Epub Date: 2026-06-19 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70040

Adam Callister, Andrew Granato, Belisa Pang

{"title":"Expert Asymmetry: Evidence From Securities Litigation","authors":"Adam Callister, Andrew Granato, Belisa Pang","doi":"10.1111/jels.70040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70040","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Modern litigation often involves two separate, extra-legal features: (1) contingency fee arrangements with the plaintiff-side attorney, and (2) a “battle of the experts” where the outcome of the case rests on conflicting expert witness testimony. We construct a model to illustrate that when these features occur simultaneously, in contexts where plaintiff-side attorneys bear the cost of hiring experts upfront, defendants will spend systematically more than plaintiffs on hiring expert witnesses. Our model is motivated by hand-collected data from a decade of securities class action litigation, where we show that experts polarize into almost entirely plaintiff-side versus defense-side experts, that defense-side experts are more “prestigious” in terms of educational and academic affiliations, and that defense-side experts are at least 36% more expensive in per-hour terms. We argue that expert asymmetry could be closed through optimal contracting in certain individual claims, but it is likely a necessary feature of all class actions, such as toxic torts or consumer protection, in an “adversarial” litigation system. This defense-side advantage therefore provides a newly identified rationale for “inquisitorial” litigation systems, including increased use of court-appointed experts under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 and state law analogues.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 3","pages":"293-326"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.70040","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148696431","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Sentencing in the Shadow of Promotion: The Impacts of Circuit Court Nomination on Federal Judges 晋升阴影下的量刑：巡回法院提名对联邦法官的影响

IF 1.1 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2026-08-05 Epub Date: 2026-06-07 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70034

Nicholas Goldrosen

{"title":"Sentencing in the Shadow of Promotion: The Impacts of Circuit Court Nomination on Federal Judges","authors":"Nicholas Goldrosen","doi":"10.1111/jels.70034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70034","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Judges seek to maximize their own utility, like everyone else. Their goals include job security and promotion. Federal judges lack the electoral incentives that often drive state judges, but they could audition for promotion. I test whether they audition for promotion in their criminal sentencing. Using criminal sentences imposed in the federal courts from 2006 to 2023, I find that federal judges who are eventually nominated to a higher court hand down longer sentences than their other “contender” peers, though this effect is moderated by the judicial district. This effect is a mixture of judicial behavior and a selection effect—judges are promoted for a variety of other reasons, many of which may be correlated with criminal sentencing. While there is no across-the-board evidence of judicial auditioning during vacancies, there is evidence of judicial auditioning for some judges under some presidents. This behavior, though, ends at nomination: an event-study design finds that the announcement of a nomination has no substantive effect on the nominee's sentencing. These results show that, despite the different structure of the federal judiciary from state courts, strategic rationality on the part of judges may also shape federal criminal sentencing.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 3","pages":"359-378"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.70034","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148695820","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Ideology and Agenda Setting in the High Court of Australia 澳大利亚高等法院的意识形态与议程设置

IF 1.1 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2026-08-05 Epub Date: 2026-06-17 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70036

Pat Leslie, Tonja Jacobi, Zoe Robinson, Russell Smyth

{"title":"Ideology and Agenda Setting in the High Court of Australia","authors":"Pat Leslie, Tonja Jacobi, Zoe Robinson, Russell Smyth","doi":"10.1111/jels.70036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70036","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Does judicial ideology affect the process of agenda-setting in the High Court of Australia? Applications for “special leave” to appeal are the primary method through which the High Court manages its caseload, analogous to certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court. Acceptance rates are low (10%–15%) and the consequences of rejection for litigants are high, since the Court rules as the final court of appeal in all areas of Australian law, including constitutional matters. To process special leave applications, the Court selects small, variably sized, panels of justices to adjudicate, deciding cases primarily via oral argument or summary disposition. However, the specific criteria for panel selection are nowhere explicitly documented, and by practice, the Chief Justice chooses the size and composition of the special leave panels. We argue this creates clear potential for ideological bias to impact case outcomes. Applying novel methods, we demonstrate that, despite substantial variability in the ideological composition of special leave panels, there is very limited evidence that panels are selected strategically to limit the success of applications in particular areas of law, and that there is no evidence that ideological composition has any impact on the success of special leave applications. Our findings contribute to a growing literature on the politics of judicial agenda setting outside the United States.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 3","pages":"408-425"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.70036","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148696407","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Randomly Albright: The End of Judge Shopping in the Western District of Texas? 随机奥尔布赖特：德克萨斯州西部地区法官购物的终结？

IF 1.1 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2026-08-05 Epub Date: 2026-06-01 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70039

Christian Helmers, Bernhard Ganglmair, Brian J. Love

{"title":"Randomly Albright: The End of Judge Shopping in the Western District of Texas?","authors":"Christian Helmers, Bernhard Ganglmair, Brian J. Love","doi":"10.1111/jels.70039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70039","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Because judges exercise discretion in how they handle and decide cases, heterogeneity across judges can affect case outcomes and, thus, preferences among litigants for particular judges. However, selection obscures the causal mechanisms that drive these preferences. We overcome this challenge by studying the introduction of random case assignment in a venue (the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas) that previously experienced a high degree of case concentration before one judge (Alan Albright), whom litigants could select with virtual certainty. To assess Albright's importance to patent enforcers, we examine how case filing patterns changed following the adoption of random case allocation and show that case filings in the Western District of Texas decreased significantly at both the intensive and extensive margins. Moreover, to shed light on why litigants prefer Judge Albright, we compare case management metrics and motions practice across randomly assigned cases and show that cases assigned to Albright received relatively early trial dates and generated fewer motions to stay pending parallel administrative invalidity proceedings and fewer motions to invalidate patents on subject matter eligibility grounds.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 3","pages":"327-346"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.70039","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148695956","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Mobility-Restricting Covenants in Business Contracts: The Case of Franchising 商业合同中的流动性限制条款：以特许经营为例

IF 1.1 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2026-08-05 Epub Date: 2026-07-29 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70033

Francine Lafontaine, Lorenzo G. Luisetto, J.J. Prescott

引用次数: 0

An Assessment of Racial Disparities in Pretrial Decision-Making Using Misclassification Models. 用错误分类模型评估审前决策中的种族差异。

IF 1.1 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-04-16 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70031

Kimberly A Hochstedler Webb, Sarah A Riley, Martin T Wells

{"title":"An Assessment of Racial Disparities in Pretrial Decision-Making Using Misclassification Models.","authors":"Kimberly A Hochstedler Webb, Sarah A Riley, Martin T Wells","doi":"10.1111/jels.70031","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jels.70031","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Pretrial risk assessment tools are used in jurisdictions across the country to assess the likelihood of \"pretrial failure,\" the event where defendants either fail to appear (FTA) for court or reoffend. Judicial officers, in turn, use these assessments to determine whether to release or detain defendants during trial. While algorithmic risk assessment tools were designed to predict pretrial failure with greater accuracy relative to judges, there is still concern that both risk assessment recommendations and pretrial decisions are biased against minority groups. We use the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI) as a case study to investigate the accuracy and fairness of risk assessment algorithms and judicial decisions. In this paper, we develop methods to investigate the association between risk factors and pretrial failure, while simultaneously estimating misclassification rates of pretrial risk assessments and of judicial decisions as a function of defendant race. This approach adds to a growing literature that makes use of outcome misclassification methods to answer questions about fairness in pretrial decision-making. We give a detailed simulation study for our proposed methodology and apply these methods to data from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services. We estimate that the VPRAI algorithm has near-perfect specificity, but its sensitivity differs by defendant race. Judicial decisions also display evidence of bias; we estimate wrongful detention rates of 39.7% and 51.4% among white and Black defendants, respectively.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 2","pages":"246-269"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13256308/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148253878","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

IF 1.3 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2026-05-13

引用次数: 0