Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:57:18.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

To Prosecute or Not to Prosecute, That is the Question: Agency Litigation under the Influence of Appellate Courts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2012

Quan Li
Quan Li*
Affiliation:
University of Central Florida
*
Quan Li, Department of Political Science, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., P.O. Box 161356, Orlando FL, 32816, quanli@ucf.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. This article examines how institutional uncertainty within the US federal circuit courts influences regulatory agencies' enforcement choices of prosecution or non-prosecution. I argue that the circuits' random assignment of judges and cases creates institutional uncertainty in terms of variation in each circuit's possible rulings with respect to the bureaucracy's policy position. This, in turn, affects agencies' probability of prosecution because the high degree of uncertainty will discourage prosecution, given its cost. In other words, agencies reduce their exposure to judicial review by avoiding prosecution. I use ideological variance within the circuits as a proxy for measuring the circuit courts' internal group dynamics. Large ideological variance indicates high institutional uncertainty and consequently leads to fewer numbers of prosecutions by the bureaucracy. The empirical results based on the prosecution record of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice from 1950 to 1994 strongly support the theory.

Résumé. L'article analyse comment l'imprévisibilité des décisions judiciaires au niveau des cours d'appel fédérales de circuit influence les décisions par les agences publiques de poursuivre les contrevenants à la règlementation. Je montre que l'attribution des juges et des causes par loterie crée de l'incertitude quant à l'issue des poursuites. L'incertitude réduit la probabilité que les agences publiques entament des poursuites judiciaires étant donné le coût élevé de celles-ci. En d'autres termes, les agences publiques atténuent l'implémentation de la règlementation par crainte de perdre devant des tribunaux imprévisibles. J'utilise une mesure de variance idéologique pour quantifier la dynamique de groupe à l'intérieur des circuits judiciaires. Une grande variance idéologique signifie un résultat incertain et mène à un nombre réduit de poursuites initiées par les agences publiques. Les données empiriques, provenant des registres de la Division Anti-trust du Ministère de la Justice des États-Unis pour la période s'étendant de 1950 à 1994, soutiennent fortement la théorie.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 185 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brenner, Saul. 1980. “Fluidity on the United States Supreme Court: A Reexamination.” American Journal of Political Science 24: 526–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, Saul. 1982. “Fluidity on the Supreme Court: 1956–1967.” American Journal of Political Science 26: 388–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice. 2003. “Bureaucratic Decisions and the Composition of the Lower Courts.” American Journal of Political Science 47: 205–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jonathan Matthew. 2005. Inside Appellate Courts. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Cross, Frank B. 2007. Decision Making in the US Courts of Appeals. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Kenneth Culp. 1969. Discretionary Justice. Baton Rouge LA: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Eisner, Marc Allen. 1991. Antitrust and the Triumph of Economics. Chapel Hill NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Eisner, Marc Allen and Meier, Kenneth J.. 1990. “Presidential Control versus Bureaucratic Power: Explaining the Reagan Revolution in Antitrust.” American Journal of Political Science 34: 269–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enders, Walter. 2004. Applied Econometric Time Series. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Knight, Jack. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Hoekstra, Valerie, Segal, Jeffrey A. and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1998. “Do Political Preferences Change? A Longitudinal Study of US Supreme Court Justices.” The Journal of Politics 60: 801–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farhang, Sean and Wawro, Gregory. 2004. “Institutional Dynamics on the US Court of Appeals: Minority Representation under Panel Decision Making.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 20: 299–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, Micheal W., Hettinger, Virginia and Peppers, Todd. 2001. “Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas.” Political Research Quarterly 54: 623–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, Michael W., Walker, Thomas G. and Zorn, Christopher. 2006. “Setting a Judicial Agenda: The Decision to Grant En Banc Review in the US Courts of Appeals.” Journal of Politics 68: 852–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Sanford and Huber, Gregory A.. 2009. “The Political Economy of Prosecution.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 5: 135–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, Ian, Baar, Carl, McCormick, Peter, Szablowski, George and Thomas, Martin. 1998. Final Appeal: Decision-Making in Canadian Courts of Appeal. Toronto: James Lorimer.Google Scholar
Hagle, Timothy M., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1993. “Ideological Patterns in the Justices' Voting in the Burger Court's Business Cases.” The Journal of Politics 55(May): 492–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Keith. 2002. Law as Last Resort: Prosecution Decision-Making in a Regulatory Agency. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., Lindquist, Stefanie A. and Martinek, Wendy L.. 2004. “Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the US Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political Science 48: 123–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, J. Woodford Jr. 1968. “On the Fluidity of Judicial Choice.” The American Political Science Review 62: 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Robert M. and Nixon, David C.. 2002. “Regional Court Influence over Bureaucratic Policymaking: Courts, Ideological Preferences, and the Internal Revenue Service.” Political Research Quarterly 55: 907–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuersten, Ashlyn K. and Songer, Donald R.. 2001. Decisions on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Garland Publishers.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, Spriggs_II, James F. and Wahlbeck, Paul J.. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., and Quinn, Kevin M.. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10: 134–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. 1966. “Courts as Small Groups.” Harvard Law Review 79: 1565–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2005. Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchett, C. Herman. 1948. The Roosevelt Court: A study in judicial politics and values, 1937–1947. New York: Macmillan Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revesz, Richard L. 1997. “Environmental Regulation, Ideology, and the DC Circuit.” Virginia Law Review 83: 1717–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, James R. 2001. “Information and Judicial Review: A Signaling Game of Legislative-Judicial Interaction.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1972. “Policy Goals and Opinion Coalitions in the Supreme Court.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 16: 208–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, David W. and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon. 1965. The Judicial Mind: The Attitudes and Ideologies of Supreme Court Justices 1946–1963. Evanston IN: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon. 1974. The Judicial Mind Revisited: Psychometric Analysis of Supreme Court Ideology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Sidney A. and Levy, Richard E.. 1987. “Heightened Scrutiny of the Fourth Branch: Separation of Powers and the Requirement of Adequate Reasons for Agency Decisions.” Duke Law Journal 1987: 387–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Sidney A. and Levy, Richard E.. 1995. “Judicial Incentives and Indeterminacy in Substantive Review of Administrative Decisions.” Duke Law Journal 44: 1051–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shotts, Kenneth W. and Wiseman, Alan E.. 2010. “The Politics of Investigations and Regulatory Enforcement by Independent Agents and Cabinet Appointees.” Journal of Politics 72: 209–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiller, Pablo T. and Tiller, Emerson H.. 1997. “Decision Costs and the Strategic Design of Administrative Process and Judicial Review.” Journal of Legal Studies 26: 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R., Schkade, David, Ellman, Lisa M. and Sawicki, Andres. 2006. Are Judges Political? Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Tiller, Emerson H. and Spiller, Pablo T.. 1999. “Strategic Instruments: Legal Structure and Political Games in Administrative Law.” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 15: 349–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, Sidney. 1971. Courts as Small and Not So Small Groups. New York: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
Weaver, Suzanne. 1977. Decision to Prosecute: Organization and Public Policy in the Antitrust Division. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wood, B. Dan and Anderson, James E.. 1993. “The Politics of US Antitrust Regulation.” American Journal of Political Science 37: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, B. Dan and Waterman, Richard W.. 1994. Bureaucratic Dynamics: The Role of Bureaucracy in a Democracy. San Francisco: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Zuk, Gary, Barrow, Deborah J. and Gryski, Gerard S.. 1997. Multi-Use Database on the Attributes of United States Appeals Court Judges, [Computer file]. ICPSR06796-v1. Gary Zuk, Deborah J. Barrow, and Gerard S. Gryski, Auburn University [producers], 1996. Ann Arbor MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].CrossRefGoogle Scholar