Brett Curry
Biographic Data
| ID | 3846283 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Brett Curry |
| GIVEN NAMES | Brett |
| FAMILY NAME | Curry |
| SIGNATURE | CURRY B |
| AFFILIATIONS | Georgia Southern University |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-6366-0714 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 22 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 162 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 22 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1978 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2026 |
| H-INDEX | 5 |
From Prosecutor to Partner: Revolving Door Incentives in Federal White-Collar Prosecutions
Federal prosecutors regularly transition to private practice, where they often defend the same types of cases and clients they once prosecuted. This may be particularly true for Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) in white-collar cases. Here, using data linking career trajectories to case outcomes, we examine whether AUSAs who depart for private practice treat corporate defendants differently than those who remain in government. We find “revolving” …
The Politics of Presidential Pardons: Partisan Differences in Modern Clemency Decisions
Objective We investigate how partisanship, political context, and recipient characteristics relate to presidential pardon behavior. We ask whether Democratic and Republican administrations exhibit unique patterns in the likelihood and timing of pardons across different crime categories. Methods We analyze presidential pardons issued from 1989 to 2024. Leveraging data on the crimes for which pardons are granted, recipient characteristics, and addi…
Tradeoffs and Spillovers in U.S. Criminal Immigration Enforcement
This study examines the unintended consequences of federal criminal prosecution of immigration offenses on incarceration for other crimes. Drawing on bureaucratic politics theory, we argue that routinized procedures and resource constraints may lead to tradeoffs and spillover effects as immigration enforcement increases. Using federal sentencing data from 2001 to 2019, we find evidence of spillover but not tradeoff; increased immigration enforcem…
Exploring the influence of wealth on judicial decision making
Objective Attention to levels of socioeconomic inequality has given rise to work investigating its potential to influence political actors and, thus, policy outcomes. These studies have focused on elected actors in legislative contexts. Ours fills this gap by assessing the consequences of a judge's wealth on decision making. Methods We obtain data on federal appellate judges’ wealth and explore its influence in cases involving economic issues. We…
When Advocates Become Adjudicators: Tracing the Effects of Prosecutorial and Public Defense Experience on Judicial Decision Making
We assess the influence professional background – specifically, having been a prosecutor or a public defender – exerts on decision making by federal district court judges. Focusing on search and seizure cases, we analyze nearly 1500 motions to suppress evidence from 2000 to 2022. In addition to controlling for judicial ideology and a judge’s prior experience as a prosecutor or public defender, we utilize matching to address endogeneity concerns r…
Leveled odds? Attorney capability, team litigation, and outcomes in administrative patent cases
We examine the impact of legal representation in an administrative setting. Focusing on adversarial proceedings within the United States Patent and Trademark Office and employing new data on patent litigation, we investigate patent rights—a legal area dominated by specialized, upper‐hemisphere litigation teams that generally represent parties with ample resources. Even in an environment with substantial parity in representational capability, we f…
To Stay or Not to Stay: Patent Litigation in the Federal District Courts
We investigate when district judges stay litigation pending the resolution of parallel administrative proceedings. Leveraging unique aspects of patent litigation to create a robust test of the proposition, we consider how ideology conditions judicial behavior on this procedural judgment. We find that legal considerations guide stay decisions and that there is also an ideological dimension to that choice. Conservative district judges approach moti…
The Role of Advisory Committees in Bureaucratic Oversight: The Case of Agac
The inner workings of advisory commissions are opaque, which has frustrated inquiries about them. However, relying on data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request from the Department of Justice, we focus on one readily observable aspect of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys (AGAC)—its composition. Unique to studies of executive commissions, we know the population from which AGAC membership is drawn. This allows …
Haphazard, Systematic, or Both: An Empirical Investigation of the US Attorney Firings in 2006
In 2006, the Bush administration directed nine US attorneys to resign. This decision was a partial cause of the attorney general’s departure from the administration, and it prompted investigations and congressional hearings. Seen as largely ad hoc, we argue that theory predicts a more systematic decision-making process. We investigate this empirically and find, consistent with literature on principal-agent theories and bureaucracy, that performan…
Small‐Group Dynamics, Ideology, and Decision Making on the US Courts of Appeals
There is some evidence that judges who specialize in particular legal areas vote in more ideologically consistent ways than do nonspecialists. Upon replicating those individual results across multiple legal areas in the US courts of appeals, we assess how this increasing reliance on ideology by specialists affects decision making by others on a three‐judge panel. We find that judges who serve with a specialist are especially likely to vote in a m…
Organized interests and administrative rulemaking: The state of Wisconsin's lobbyists and coalitions
This study examines interest groups undertaking lobbying activity focused on administrative rulemaking. The analysis utilizes a dataset composed of observations made during the 2009–2010 Wisconsin Legislative Session, including the entire population of groups lobbying during this time period. This research examines the participants, efforts, and coalitions utilized when groups engaged in lobbying activity related to rulemaking. Although scholars …
Preserving Institutional Power: The S upreme C ourt and Strategic Decision Making in the Separation of Powers
We argue that the S upreme C ourt's long‐term goal of maintaining legitimacy and institutional power reflects an underdeveloped strategic consideration in models of judicial decision making. Our article posits that both institutional‐ and policy‐related incentives exist for the C ourt to engage in strategic behavior, and that those motivations may be differentially applicable to decision making in constitutional versus statutory cases. Our result…
Of politics, self-preservation, and symbolism: An investigation of jurisdiction-stripping and legislative redistricting
Jurisdiction-stripping has long been a questionable component of Congress's power to supervise the judiciary's policymaking role. It has gained notoriety in recent debates surrounding judicial involvement in areas including religious establishment and privacy issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Most scholarship equates the advocacy of jurisdiction-stripping measures with symbolic position-taking that is unmotivated by the goal of tradi…
Judicial Specialization and Ideological Decision Making in the US Courts of Appeals
We investigate the influence of subject matter expertise, opinion specialization, and judicial experience on the role of ideology in decision making in the courts of appeals in a generalized, as opposed to specialized, setting. We find that subject matter experts and opinion specialists are significantly more likely to engage in ideological decision making than their nonspecialist counterparts and that opinion specialization is a particularly pot…
Experts Judging Experts: The Role of Expertise in Reviewing Agency Decision Making
What role does judicial subject matter expertise play in the review of agency decisions? Using a data set of decisions in which the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) is reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, we investigate this question and find that greater subject matter expertise does make it more likely that a judge will vote to reverse an agency decision
Does Descriptive Race Representation Enhance Institutional Legitimacy? The Case of the U.S. Courts
In the past two decades, numerous studies have tested empirically the normative theory of descriptive race representation. Here, we focus specifically on one aspect of descriptive representation—the relationship between increased racial representation and institutional legitimacy. Does greater racial diversity within a political institution increase its reservoir of good will? Using a novel experimental design centered on the federal courts, we f…
Expertise, Experience, and Ideology on Specialized Courts: The Case of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
What roles do prior expertise and accumulated experience play in shaping ideologically consistent voting on a specialized court? Using a dataset of obviousness patent cases from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit spanning 1997-2007, we show that prior expertise enhances the influence of ideology on judicial decisionmaking, but that accumulated experience does not. In addition, we build on previous work and show that ideology is a factor…
Looking for Law in All the Wrong Places? Foreign Law and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court
References to foreign legal judgments in several recent Supreme Court decisions have given rise to substantial legal and political controversy. While those debates have largely focused on normative matters, we utilize an experimental design that presents media portrayals of Court decisions to assess the possible implications of this issue for the Court and its legitimacy with the public. Our results suggest that, should the Court continue to util…
An Informal and Limited Alliance”: The President and the Supreme Court
Presidential influence transcends some of the barriers imposed by the separation of powers to influence decision making by the Supreme Court. Specifically, we test Robert Scigliano's proposition that an informal and limited alliance exists between the president and the Court. The analysis utilizes Supreme Court decisions on civil rights and civil liberties cases from 1953 to 2000 to assess the effects of the presidency, Congress, judicial policy …
Keepers of the Covenant or Platonic Guardians? Decision Making on the U.S. Supreme Court
How do the justices of the Supreme Court make their decisions? How does the Supreme Court of the United States make its decisions? The answer to these questions may not be the same. In studying judicial decision making, there has been a disconnection between individual and institutional levels of analysis. Lifetime tenure insulates individual justices and permits them to act on their substantive preferences. At the same time, the Court lacks the …
Institutions, Interests, and Judicial Outcomes: The Politics of Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
Since 1789, diversity of citizenship jurisdiction has been a staple of the American judicial system. After presenting a general theory of jurisdictional change and reviewing diversity jurisdiction's development, the author undertakes a quantitative analysis of congressional activity vis-à-vis diversity jurisdiction. That analysis provides evidence that both administrative concerns and attention to federal judicial outcomes have impacted legislati…
Guidelines for the Allocation of Building Society Lending
The paper makes use of the concept of chains of movement to develop a recursive model of the housing market in which prices and the value of transactions at each 'level' are determined sequentially. The model is then used to examine the effects of changes in the allocation of Building Society lending on the value of transactions in the housing market, and on the value of new house sales. Finally, it is argued that both new and existing house pric…
Does Descriptive Race Representation Enhance Institutional Legitimacy? The Case of the U.S. Courts
In the past two decades, numerous studies have tested empirically the normative theory of descriptive race representation. Here, we focus specifically on one aspect of descriptive representation—the relationship between increased racial representation and institutional legitimacy. Does greater racial diversity within a political institution increase its reservoir of good will? Using a novel experimental design centered on the federal courts, we f…
Expertise, Experience, and Ideology on Specialized Courts: The Case of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
What roles do prior expertise and accumulated experience play in shaping ideologically consistent voting on a specialized court? Using a dataset of obviousness patent cases from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit spanning 1997-2007, we show that prior expertise enhances the influence of ideology on judicial decisionmaking, but that accumulated experience does not. In addition, we build on previous work and show that ideology is a factor…
An Informal and Limited Alliance”: The President and the Supreme Court
Presidential influence transcends some of the barriers imposed by the separation of powers to influence decision making by the Supreme Court. Specifically, we test Robert Scigliano's proposition that an informal and limited alliance exists between the president and the Court. The analysis utilizes Supreme Court decisions on civil rights and civil liberties cases from 1953 to 2000 to assess the effects of the presidency, Congress, judicial policy …
Preserving Institutional Power: The S upreme C ourt and Strategic Decision Making in the Separation of Powers
We argue that the S upreme C ourt's long‐term goal of maintaining legitimacy and institutional power reflects an underdeveloped strategic consideration in models of judicial decision making. Our article posits that both institutional‐ and policy‐related incentives exist for the C ourt to engage in strategic behavior, and that those motivations may be differentially applicable to decision making in constitutional versus statutory cases. Our result…
Experts Judging Experts: The Role of Expertise in Reviewing Agency Decision Making
What role does judicial subject matter expertise play in the review of agency decisions? Using a data set of decisions in which the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) is reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, we investigate this question and find that greater subject matter expertise does make it more likely that a judge will vote to reverse an agency decision
Looking for Law in All the Wrong Places? Foreign Law and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court
References to foreign legal judgments in several recent Supreme Court decisions have given rise to substantial legal and political controversy. While those debates have largely focused on normative matters, we utilize an experimental design that presents media portrayals of Court decisions to assess the possible implications of this issue for the Court and its legitimacy with the public. Our results suggest that, should the Court continue to util…
Institutions, Interests, and Judicial Outcomes: The Politics of Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
Since 1789, diversity of citizenship jurisdiction has been a staple of the American judicial system. After presenting a general theory of jurisdictional change and reviewing diversity jurisdiction's development, the author undertakes a quantitative analysis of congressional activity vis-à-vis diversity jurisdiction. That analysis provides evidence that both administrative concerns and attention to federal judicial outcomes have impacted legislati…
When Advocates Become Adjudicators: Tracing the Effects of Prosecutorial and Public Defense Experience on Judicial Decision Making
We assess the influence professional background – specifically, having been a prosecutor or a public defender – exerts on decision making by federal district court judges. Focusing on search and seizure cases, we analyze nearly 1500 motions to suppress evidence from 2000 to 2022. In addition to controlling for judicial ideology and a judge’s prior experience as a prosecutor or public defender, we utilize matching to address endogeneity concerns r…
Haphazard, Systematic, or Both: An Empirical Investigation of the US Attorney Firings in 2006
In 2006, the Bush administration directed nine US attorneys to resign. This decision was a partial cause of the attorney general’s departure from the administration, and it prompted investigations and congressional hearings. Seen as largely ad hoc, we argue that theory predicts a more systematic decision-making process. We investigate this empirically and find, consistent with literature on principal-agent theories and bureaucracy, that performan…
Small‐Group Dynamics, Ideology, and Decision Making on the US Courts of Appeals
There is some evidence that judges who specialize in particular legal areas vote in more ideologically consistent ways than do nonspecialists. Upon replicating those individual results across multiple legal areas in the US courts of appeals, we assess how this increasing reliance on ideology by specialists affects decision making by others on a three‐judge panel. We find that judges who serve with a specialist are especially likely to vote in a m…
Judicial Specialization and Ideological Decision Making in the US Courts of Appeals
We investigate the influence of subject matter expertise, opinion specialization, and judicial experience on the role of ideology in decision making in the courts of appeals in a generalized, as opposed to specialized, setting. We find that subject matter experts and opinion specialists are significantly more likely to engage in ideological decision making than their nonspecialist counterparts and that opinion specialization is a particularly pot…
Keepers of the Covenant or Platonic Guardians? Decision Making on the U.S. Supreme Court
How do the justices of the Supreme Court make their decisions? How does the Supreme Court of the United States make its decisions? The answer to these questions may not be the same. In studying judicial decision making, there has been a disconnection between individual and institutional levels of analysis. Lifetime tenure insulates individual justices and permits them to act on their substantive preferences. At the same time, the Court lacks the …
Leveled odds? Attorney capability, team litigation, and outcomes in administrative patent cases
We examine the impact of legal representation in an administrative setting. Focusing on adversarial proceedings within the United States Patent and Trademark Office and employing new data on patent litigation, we investigate patent rights—a legal area dominated by specialized, upper‐hemisphere litigation teams that generally represent parties with ample resources. Even in an environment with substantial parity in representational capability, we f…
To Stay or Not to Stay: Patent Litigation in the Federal District Courts
We investigate when district judges stay litigation pending the resolution of parallel administrative proceedings. Leveraging unique aspects of patent litigation to create a robust test of the proposition, we consider how ideology conditions judicial behavior on this procedural judgment. We find that legal considerations guide stay decisions and that there is also an ideological dimension to that choice. Conservative district judges approach moti…
The Role of Advisory Committees in Bureaucratic Oversight: The Case of Agac
The inner workings of advisory commissions are opaque, which has frustrated inquiries about them. However, relying on data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request from the Department of Justice, we focus on one readily observable aspect of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys (AGAC)—its composition. Unique to studies of executive commissions, we know the population from which AGAC membership is drawn. This allows …
Guidelines for the Allocation of Building Society Lending
The paper makes use of the concept of chains of movement to develop a recursive model of the housing market in which prices and the value of transactions at each 'level' are determined sequentially. The model is then used to examine the effects of changes in the allocation of Building Society lending on the value of transactions in the housing market, and on the value of new house sales. Finally, it is argued that both new and existing house pric…
Guidelines for the Allocation of Building Society Lending
The paper makes use of the concept of chains of movement to develop a recursive model of the housing market in which prices and the value of transactions at each 'level' are determined sequentially. The model is then used to examine the effects of changes in the allocation of Building Society lending on the value of transactions in the housing market, and on the value of new house sales. Finally, it is argued that both new and existing house pric…
Keepers of the Covenant or Platonic Guardians? Decision Making on the U.S. Supreme Court
How do the justices of the Supreme Court make their decisions? How does the Supreme Court of the United States make its decisions? The answer to these questions may not be the same. In studying judicial decision making, there has been a disconnection between individual and institutional levels of analysis. Lifetime tenure insulates individual justices and permits them to act on their substantive preferences. At the same time, the Court lacks the …
Institutions, Interests, and Judicial Outcomes: The Politics of Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
Since 1789, diversity of citizenship jurisdiction has been a staple of the American judicial system. After presenting a general theory of jurisdictional change and reviewing diversity jurisdiction's development, the author undertakes a quantitative analysis of congressional activity vis-à-vis diversity jurisdiction. That analysis provides evidence that both administrative concerns and attention to federal judicial outcomes have impacted legislati…
Looking for Law in All the Wrong Places? Foreign Law and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court
References to foreign legal judgments in several recent Supreme Court decisions have given rise to substantial legal and political controversy. While those debates have largely focused on normative matters, we utilize an experimental design that presents media portrayals of Court decisions to assess the possible implications of this issue for the Court and its legitimacy with the public. Our results suggest that, should the Court continue to util…
An Informal and Limited Alliance”: The President and the Supreme Court
Presidential influence transcends some of the barriers imposed by the separation of powers to influence decision making by the Supreme Court. Specifically, we test Robert Scigliano's proposition that an informal and limited alliance exists between the president and the Court. The analysis utilizes Supreme Court decisions on civil rights and civil liberties cases from 1953 to 2000 to assess the effects of the presidency, Congress, judicial policy …
Expertise, Experience, and Ideology on Specialized Courts: The Case of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
What roles do prior expertise and accumulated experience play in shaping ideologically consistent voting on a specialized court? Using a dataset of obviousness patent cases from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit spanning 1997-2007, we show that prior expertise enhances the influence of ideology on judicial decisionmaking, but that accumulated experience does not. In addition, we build on previous work and show that ideology is a factor…
Does Descriptive Race Representation Enhance Institutional Legitimacy? The Case of the U.S. Courts
In the past two decades, numerous studies have tested empirically the normative theory of descriptive race representation. Here, we focus specifically on one aspect of descriptive representation—the relationship between increased racial representation and institutional legitimacy. Does greater racial diversity within a political institution increase its reservoir of good will? Using a novel experimental design centered on the federal courts, we f…
Experts Judging Experts: The Role of Expertise in Reviewing Agency Decision Making
What role does judicial subject matter expertise play in the review of agency decisions? Using a data set of decisions in which the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) is reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, we investigate this question and find that greater subject matter expertise does make it more likely that a judge will vote to reverse an agency decision
Judicial Specialization and Ideological Decision Making in the US Courts of Appeals
We investigate the influence of subject matter expertise, opinion specialization, and judicial experience on the role of ideology in decision making in the courts of appeals in a generalized, as opposed to specialized, setting. We find that subject matter experts and opinion specialists are significantly more likely to engage in ideological decision making than their nonspecialist counterparts and that opinion specialization is a particularly pot…
Preserving Institutional Power: The S upreme C ourt and Strategic Decision Making in the Separation of Powers
We argue that the S upreme C ourt's long‐term goal of maintaining legitimacy and institutional power reflects an underdeveloped strategic consideration in models of judicial decision making. Our article posits that both institutional‐ and policy‐related incentives exist for the C ourt to engage in strategic behavior, and that those motivations may be differentially applicable to decision making in constitutional versus statutory cases. Our result…
Of politics, self-preservation, and symbolism: An investigation of jurisdiction-stripping and legislative redistricting
Jurisdiction-stripping has long been a questionable component of Congress's power to supervise the judiciary's policymaking role. It has gained notoriety in recent debates surrounding judicial involvement in areas including religious establishment and privacy issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Most scholarship equates the advocacy of jurisdiction-stripping measures with symbolic position-taking that is unmotivated by the goal of tradi…
Organized interests and administrative rulemaking: The state of Wisconsin's lobbyists and coalitions
This study examines interest groups undertaking lobbying activity focused on administrative rulemaking. The analysis utilizes a dataset composed of observations made during the 2009–2010 Wisconsin Legislative Session, including the entire population of groups lobbying during this time period. This research examines the participants, efforts, and coalitions utilized when groups engaged in lobbying activity related to rulemaking. Although scholars …
Small‐Group Dynamics, Ideology, and Decision Making on the US Courts of Appeals
There is some evidence that judges who specialize in particular legal areas vote in more ideologically consistent ways than do nonspecialists. Upon replicating those individual results across multiple legal areas in the US courts of appeals, we assess how this increasing reliance on ideology by specialists affects decision making by others on a three‐judge panel. We find that judges who serve with a specialist are especially likely to vote in a m…
Haphazard, Systematic, or Both: An Empirical Investigation of the US Attorney Firings in 2006
In 2006, the Bush administration directed nine US attorneys to resign. This decision was a partial cause of the attorney general’s departure from the administration, and it prompted investigations and congressional hearings. Seen as largely ad hoc, we argue that theory predicts a more systematic decision-making process. We investigate this empirically and find, consistent with literature on principal-agent theories and bureaucracy, that performan…
To Stay or Not to Stay: Patent Litigation in the Federal District Courts
We investigate when district judges stay litigation pending the resolution of parallel administrative proceedings. Leveraging unique aspects of patent litigation to create a robust test of the proposition, we consider how ideology conditions judicial behavior on this procedural judgment. We find that legal considerations guide stay decisions and that there is also an ideological dimension to that choice. Conservative district judges approach moti…
The Role of Advisory Committees in Bureaucratic Oversight: The Case of Agac
The inner workings of advisory commissions are opaque, which has frustrated inquiries about them. However, relying on data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request from the Department of Justice, we focus on one readily observable aspect of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys (AGAC)—its composition. Unique to studies of executive commissions, we know the population from which AGAC membership is drawn. This allows …
Leveled odds? Attorney capability, team litigation, and outcomes in administrative patent cases
We examine the impact of legal representation in an administrative setting. Focusing on adversarial proceedings within the United States Patent and Trademark Office and employing new data on patent litigation, we investigate patent rights—a legal area dominated by specialized, upper‐hemisphere litigation teams that generally represent parties with ample resources. Even in an environment with substantial parity in representational capability, we f…
When Advocates Become Adjudicators: Tracing the Effects of Prosecutorial and Public Defense Experience on Judicial Decision Making
We assess the influence professional background – specifically, having been a prosecutor or a public defender – exerts on decision making by federal district court judges. Focusing on search and seizure cases, we analyze nearly 1500 motions to suppress evidence from 2000 to 2022. In addition to controlling for judicial ideology and a judge’s prior experience as a prosecutor or public defender, we utilize matching to address endogeneity concerns r…
Exploring the influence of wealth on judicial decision making
Objective Attention to levels of socioeconomic inequality has given rise to work investigating its potential to influence political actors and, thus, policy outcomes. These studies have focused on elected actors in legislative contexts. Ours fills this gap by assessing the consequences of a judge's wealth on decision making. Methods We obtain data on federal appellate judges’ wealth and explore its influence in cases involving economic issues. We…
Tradeoffs and Spillovers in U.S. Criminal Immigration Enforcement
This study examines the unintended consequences of federal criminal prosecution of immigration offenses on incarceration for other crimes. Drawing on bureaucratic politics theory, we argue that routinized procedures and resource constraints may lead to tradeoffs and spillover effects as immigration enforcement increases. Using federal sentencing data from 2001 to 2019, we find evidence of spillover but not tradeoff; increased immigration enforcem…
From Prosecutor to Partner: Revolving Door Incentives in Federal White-Collar Prosecutions
Federal prosecutors regularly transition to private practice, where they often defend the same types of cases and clients they once prosecuted. This may be particularly true for Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) in white-collar cases. Here, using data linking career trajectories to case outcomes, we examine whether AUSAs who depart for private practice treat corporate defendants differently than those who remain in government. We find “revolving” …
The Politics of Presidential Pardons: Partisan Differences in Modern Clemency Decisions
Objective We investigate how partisanship, political context, and recipient characteristics relate to presidential pardon behavior. We ask whether Democratic and Republican administrations exhibit unique patterns in the likelihood and timing of pardons across different crime categories. Methods We analyze presidential pardons issued from 1989 to 2024. Leveraging data on the crimes for which pardons are granted, recipient characteristics, and addi…
Law (19 works) · Political science (19 works) · Judicial and Constitutional Studies (18 works) · Law (16 works) · Politics (16 works) · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems (14 works) · Legal and Constitutional Studies (12 works) · Sociology (12 works) · Ideology (9 works) · Business (6 works)