Econ Papers Daily / 期刊论文
意识形态与司法裁量范围：来自联邦地区法院的证据
Ideology and the scope of judicial discretion: evidence from the federal district courts
摘要
This study examines how changes in judicial discretion influence ideological decision-making in the federal courts. Leveraging a pair of unanimous Supreme Court decisions that expanded district judges’ discretion to award attorney’s fees in patent litigation, we investigate whether this procedural reform led to substantive shifts in outcomes. Our differences-in-differences design reveals that conservative judges became significantly more likely to award fees after 2014 while more liberal ones did not. We observe no similar pattern in copyright cases, which experienced no comparable expansion of discretion. This patent-specific effect is driven by accused infringers seeking fees after defeating patent claims, consistent with conservative preferences for deterring frivolous litigation. Even unanimous, procedurally focused appellate rulings can lead to asymmetric ideological effects. These findings have implications for understanding how changes in discretionary authority—including the Court’s recent abandonment of Chevron deference—may systematically empower certain ideological preferences in the federal judiciary.
中文摘要
本研究探讨司法裁量权的变化如何影响联邦法院的意识形态决策。借助两起一致通过的最高法院判决（这些判决扩大了地区法官在专利诉讼中裁定律师费的裁量权），我们考察了这一程序性改革是否导致了判决结果的实质性转变。采用双重差分法分析发现，2014年后保守派法官裁定律师费的可能性显著增加，而自由派法官则未呈现类似趋势。在版权案件中（其裁量权未经历同等扩张），我们未观察到相似模式。这种专利特有的效应主要由败诉方在专利主张被驳回后寻求律师费补偿所驱动，这与保守派偏好遏制滥诉行为的立场一致。即使是全体一致通过、聚焦程序问题的上诉裁决，也可能引发非对称的意识形态效应。这些发现对于理解裁量权变化——包括最高法院近期放弃雪佛龙尊重原则——如何系统性地强化联邦司法体系中特定意识形态偏好具有启示意义。