Contextual Influences on Court Outcomes

• Published date: 01 March 1988
• DOI: 10.1177/106591298804100108
• Date: 01 March 1988
• Author: Lee E. Dutter,Lettie McSpadden Wenner
• Subject Matter: Articles

CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES ON COURT OUTCOMES
LETTIE McSPADDEN WENNER, University of Illinois at Chicago
and
LEE E. DUTTER, Boston University
TUDENTS
of the judicial process have identified many competing
~~ variables that may influence court decisions. In most studies, how-
~7 ever, one of these variables has been considered in isolation with-
out controlling for other rival hypotheses. One theory that has obtained
some
success in explaining and predicting court outcomes is the context
in which the court acts. (Vines 1964; Giles and Walker 1975; Graeber
1973; Cook 1977; Kritzer 1978; Levin 1974; and Carp and Rowland
1983). Yet rarely has this theory been examined in a multi-variable model
in which it is possible to control for the confounding effects of other fac-
tors. It is the purpose of this research to address this problem.
Contextual theorists argue that the situation in which decision-makers
formulate policy affects the types of policies they make. This is true
whether the context be defined as socioeconomic (Dye 1966) or politi-
cal culture (Elazar 1962). Despite the homogenizing effects of the elec-
tronic media and increased geographic mobility for some sectors of
society, the shared historical experiences of people living is the same re-
gion appear to influence their values and the actions of their elected
representatives in making public policy. Today students of public opin-
ion, the Congress, and state government expect to find similarities be-
tween the way voters in various part of the United States view the world,
and how their representatives make public policy.
Traditional jurisprudence would have us believe that legal training
eradicates regional variations among judges and produces essentially uni-
form decisions. Yet is is reasonable to expect that judges are subject to
the same contextual influences that affect congressmen and state legisla-
tors. They are raised in a political culture that imbues then with the tra-
ditions of their region; most are educated within their own state or region
and all obtain their positions through close association with one of the
major political parties of their state. Elevation to the federal bench nor-
mally occurs with the help of one or more U.S. senators from the judge’s
s
state. It is difficult to imagine how individual federal judges, no matter
how
carefully trained in the law, could escape the contextual influences
that surround them in their family, friendships, work-place and social
organizations.
Some students of the judicial process have investigated the connec-
tion between the context in which judges live and work and their deci-
Received : August 6, 1986
First Revision Received: January 8, 1987
Second Revision Received: April 28, 1987
Accepted for Publication: April 29, 1987

---

116
sions. As early as 1964, Vines showed the southern district court judges
who have been educated or worked outside the South tended to be more
likely to support school integration following the Brown decision than
other judges who were more closely connected to their regional heri-
tage. Later Giles and Walker (1975) found that in a changed South, other
contextual variables, including percentages of black enrollees and the resi-
dence of the judge were important in predicting desegregation rulings.
Students of Vietnam War protestors’ trials also found that differences
among judges’ decisions varied with location of the court and with pub-
lic opinion as it fluctuated across regions and over time. (Graeber 1973;
Cook 1977; Kritzer 1978).
Studies that focus on controversial issues such as race relations and
war
protests have the greatest likelihood of revealing differences among
regions, since it is on these issues that judges will know most about pub-
lic attitudes. Similarly, students of congressional behavior have noted that
it is on controversial subjects that elected representatives are most in-
fluenced by voter preferences (Miller and Stokes, 1963; Erickson, 1978).
Nevertheless, there is evidence that systematic variations exist between
the way judges in different regions rule regardless of the specific issue.
Levin (1974) showed that judges in the ethnically homogeneous middle
class environment of Minneapolis tended to sentence convicted crimi-
nals more severely than did judges in the more ethnically mixed, work-
ing class city of Pittsburgh. Carp and Rowland (1983) demonstrated that
northeastern and midwestern federal district judges tend to be more liberal
than their southern and western counterparts on all issues.
While interest in contextual explanations for judicial behavior appears
to be increasing, rival hypotheses for predicting court outcomes remain.
As Carp and Rowland (1983) have indicated, federal district judges’ de-
cisions are dependent not only on the circuit in which they serve, but
also on their political party and the identity of the president who ap-
pointed them. Advocates of the law school model argue that legally rele-
vant inputs to courts (facts and laws) are the major independent variables
that affect outcomes. Lawyers and some social scientists have used ex-
clusively legal factors to predict successfully outcomes in cases ranging
from right to counsel to zoning regulation (Lawlor 1963; Kort 1966; Grun-
baum 1972; Haar et al. 1977; Segal 1984).
Another possible explanation for judicial outcomes unrelated to con-
text focuses on types of litigants involved and their relative political clout
and/or command of legal resources. Some researchers argue that, as in
other branches of government, the powerful tend to come out ahead
(Galanter 1974; Wanner 1975). Others believe, and some advocate, that
courts should be the special guardian of the weak in society. What em-
pirical evidence has been brought to bear on these questions, however,
indicates that at least one powerful litigant, the U.S. Government, tends
to be favored both in being granted access to the U.S. Supreme Court
(Tanenhaus et al. 1963) and in winning in that forum (Tanenhaus 1961;
Carrington 1974). Galanter found that repeat players (usually business
organizations) tend to win more than do one shotters (individuals), and

---

117
Ulmer noted that &dquo;upperdogs&dquo; (business organizations) generally get into
the Supreme Court more often than do &dquo;underdogs&dquo; (individual litigants)
except for one brief period during the Warren Court (Ulmer 1978).
Despite the efficacy of different types of variables in explaining court
outcomes, multivariate models that assess the relative importance of
different theories are scarce (Gibson 1983). It is the purpose of this re-
search to address the question of whether the context in which a court
case takes place affects the outcome independently of the presidential
term in which it takes place, the subject or law of the case, and the liti-
gants involved. By incorporating all four types of independent variables
into the same model, it is possible to control the impact of other factors
while simultaneously assessing the independent impact of the context.
Thus, a clearer picture of the totality of factors influencing judicial out-
comes can ultimately emerge.
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AS A TEST OF CONTEXTUAL THEORY
Environmental law lends itself readily to testing the proposition that
regional differences affect judicial decision making. While it is not so con-
troversial as the issues of race relations and war and peace, it is one in
which considerable measurement of public opinion has taken place. Public
support for environmental values varies noticeably around the country
(CEQ 1980; Mitchel 1984). Support for environmental issues is concen-
trated in the northeast, along the west coast, and in the midwest. Eco-
nomic development values are more prevalent in the southeast and
southwest, a fact that is reflected in congressional delegation voting on
environmental bills. (League of Conservation Voters 1970-1985). Environ-
mental cases are distributed among all ninety-four districts and twelve
U.S. Circuits. The twelve federal circuits, while not homogeneous, can
be grouped into four major regions. The First, Second, and Third circuits
are located along the North Atlantic seaboard in the environmentally con-
scious Northeast. The Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth represent the midwest,
also supportive of the environment. The developmentally oriented South
consists the Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuit. The West is divided
between the Ninth on the coast with strong public support for the en-
vironment, and the Tenth, a developmental area. Therefore, it is our ex-
pectation that the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth
Circuits will reflect environmental values, whereas the Fourth, Fifth,
Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits will be more receptive to developmental
demands.
The D.C. Circuit represents a special case. Althourgh located on the
eastern eastboard, it cannot be argued to share the northeastern legal cul-
ture in the same sense that the First, Second, and Third do. Unhampered
by senatorial courtesy, presidents can appoint D.C. district and circuit
1
The data for this study extend from 1970 to 1985. The districts comprising the Eleventh
Circuit were analyzed separately for the entire period despite the fact that they formed
part of the Fifth Circuit during most of this period.

---

118
judges from around the nation and can afford to focus on ideological pu-
rity rather than political accommodation. While D.C. judges doubtless
bring with them ideologies imbued in them by their environments, since
these...