"Why (and When) Judges Dissent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis"

Three law professors released an interesting article about why Judge's dissent.  The article "Why (and When) Judges Dissent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis" was written by Lee Epstein, Northwestern University - School of Law; William M. Landes, University of Chicago Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); and Richard A. Posner, University of Chicago Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) (also a Seventh Circuit Judge).

The article abstract states:

This paper develops and tests a model of self-interested judicial behavior to explore the pheno-menon of judicial dissents, and in particular what we call “dissent aversion,” which sometimes causes a judge not to dissent even when he disagrees with the majority opinion. We examine dissent aversion using data from both the federal courts of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Our empirical findings are consistent with the predictions of the model. In the court of appeals, the frequency of dissents is negatively related to the caseload and positively related to ideological diversity among judges in the circuit and circuit size (i.e., the fewer the judges, the greater the collegiality costs of dissenting and therefore, other things being equal, the fewer dissents). We also find that dissents increase the length of majority opinions (imposing collegiality costs by making the majority work harder) and are rarely cited either inside or outside the circuit (reducing the value of dissenting to dissenters). In the Supreme Court, we find that the dissent rate is negatively related to the caseload and positively related to ideological differences, that majority opinions are longer when there is a dissent and that dissents are rarely cited in either the courts of appeals or the Supreme Court.

The suggested citation is: Epstein, Lee, Landes, William M. and Posner, Richard A., Why (and When) Judges Dissent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis (January 20, 2010). U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 510. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1542834

Thanks to How Appealing.