Alyx Mark
Biographic Data
| ID | 3846458 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Alyx Mark |
| GIVEN NAMES | Alyx |
| FAMILY NAME | Mark |
| SIGNATURE | MARK A |
| AFFILIATIONS | Wesleyan University |
| ORCID | 0000-0003-4876-6980 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 10 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 47 |
| WORKS AS AUTHOR | 10 |
| WORKS AS EDITOR | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2014 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2025 |
| H-INDEX | 4 |
Publishing Public Law
As expectations for research output evolve, tenure portfolios serve as valuable records of how a field gauges impact. We analyze the records of 184 Law and Courts faculty at PhD-granting institutions and find that the median portfolio has grown from seven to ten peer-reviewed articles, that scholars publish in a wider variety of outlets, and that coauthorship rates have doubled over our four-decade time period. We also note patterns of gendered c…
Perceptions of administrative policymaking authority
Two models, the hierarchical model and the local control model, drive the way we talk about the decisions court actors and judges make. However, neither considered in isolation is an adequate explanation of courts’ administrative policy choices during the Covid-19 pandemic. This paper explores how actors in state courts in the United States perceived and performed their policymaking capacity using elite interviews. It argues that considering feat…
Covid-19 Housing Policy
This article provides the first comprehensive description of federal and state housing policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning on March 13, 2020, the federal government, 43 states, the District of Columbia, and five American territories issued eviction moratoria that varied in terms of justification, the stage(s) of eviction frozen, the duration and source of protections, and the eligible population. There were cross-state differences…
Public campaign financing’s effects on judicial legitimacy
Although judicial elections are considered a method of keeping state courts—otherwise insulated from public pressure—accountable, the private financing of judicial campaigns has been met with significant criticism. In particular, the perception that campaign contributions can buy favorable case outcomes for contributors to judicial candidates may pose problems for judicial legitimacy. While some scholars and advocacy groups have advanced proposal…
The Conditional Effectiveness of Legislative Threats
The separation-of-powers literature focuses on how the preferences of one branch constrain the behavior of its counterparts. Yet, in much of this work, scholars do not address how responsive behavior varies across particular members. Focusing on Court curbing legislation in Congress, we develop a model of heterogeneous responsiveness. Our theory identifies two distinct mechanisms that underpin responsiveness in judicial behavior, implying that th…
Blurring Institutional Boundaries
The legislature wields multiple tools to limit judicial power, but scholars have little information about how judges interpret variant threats and which they find most concerning. To provide insight, we conduct original interviews regarding legislative threats to courts with over two dozen sitting federal judges, representing all tiers of the federal judiciary. We find that judges have a nuanced understanding of threats and tend to identify compo…
Restraining the Court
We propose a multilevel account of legislative Court curbing in order to assess existing explanations as to why such proposals come about. We argue that although Court curbing is commonly seen as the result of institutional conflict between Congress and the Supreme Court, it is best understood as a product of three interrelated factors: the individual motivations on the part of lawmakers, the partisan context in which they operate, and institutio…
Trial and Error
Nonlawyer advocates are one proposed solution to the access to justice crisis. Theory and research suggest that nonlawyers might be effective, yet scholars know very little, empirically, about nonlawyer practice in the United States. Using data from more than 5,000 unemployment insurance appeal hearings and interviews with lawyers and nonlawyers who represent employers in these hearings, this article explores how both types of representatives dev…
Lawyers' Perceptions of the U.S. Supreme Court
Do legal elites—lawyers admitted to federal appellate bars—perceive the Supreme Court as a “political” institution? Legal elites differentiate themselves from the mass public in the amount and sources of information about the Court. They also hold near-universal perceptions of Court legitimacy, a result we use to derive competing theoretical expectations regarding the impact of ideological disagreement on various Court perceptions. Survey data sh…
Stepping on Congress
Legislative enactment is only one step in the life of a law. How a law shapes public life after enactment is frequently the result of whether the judiciary interprets the provisions contained in a law and how courts reconcile provisions within and across laws. But the factors that determine whether the judiciary ends up playing such a role are not well understood. We investigate why the courts, through statutory interpretation, address some major…
The Conditional Effectiveness of Legislative Threats
The separation-of-powers literature focuses on how the preferences of one branch constrain the behavior of its counterparts. Yet, in much of this work, scholars do not address how responsive behavior varies across particular members. Focusing on Court curbing legislation in Congress, we develop a model of heterogeneous responsiveness. Our theory identifies two distinct mechanisms that underpin responsiveness in judicial behavior, implying that th…
Restraining the Court
We propose a multilevel account of legislative Court curbing in order to assess existing explanations as to why such proposals come about. We argue that although Court curbing is commonly seen as the result of institutional conflict between Congress and the Supreme Court, it is best understood as a product of three interrelated factors: the individual motivations on the part of lawmakers, the partisan context in which they operate, and institutio…
Lawyers' Perceptions of the U.S. Supreme Court
Do legal elites—lawyers admitted to federal appellate bars—perceive the Supreme Court as a “political” institution? Legal elites differentiate themselves from the mass public in the amount and sources of information about the Court. They also hold near-universal perceptions of Court legitimacy, a result we use to derive competing theoretical expectations regarding the impact of ideological disagreement on various Court perceptions. Survey data sh…
Blurring Institutional Boundaries
The legislature wields multiple tools to limit judicial power, but scholars have little information about how judges interpret variant threats and which they find most concerning. To provide insight, we conduct original interviews regarding legislative threats to courts with over two dozen sitting federal judges, representing all tiers of the federal judiciary. We find that judges have a nuanced understanding of threats and tend to identify compo…
Stepping on Congress
Legislative enactment is only one step in the life of a law. How a law shapes public life after enactment is frequently the result of whether the judiciary interprets the provisions contained in a law and how courts reconcile provisions within and across laws. But the factors that determine whether the judiciary ends up playing such a role are not well understood. We investigate why the courts, through statutory interpretation, address some major…
Public campaign financing’s effects on judicial legitimacy
Although judicial elections are considered a method of keeping state courts—otherwise insulated from public pressure—accountable, the private financing of judicial campaigns has been met with significant criticism. In particular, the perception that campaign contributions can buy favorable case outcomes for contributors to judicial candidates may pose problems for judicial legitimacy. While some scholars and advocacy groups have advanced proposal…
Stepping on Congress
Legislative enactment is only one step in the life of a law. How a law shapes public life after enactment is frequently the result of whether the judiciary interprets the provisions contained in a law and how courts reconcile provisions within and across laws. But the factors that determine whether the judiciary ends up playing such a role are not well understood. We investigate why the courts, through statutory interpretation, address some major…
Lawyers' Perceptions of the U.S. Supreme Court
Do legal elites—lawyers admitted to federal appellate bars—perceive the Supreme Court as a “political” institution? Legal elites differentiate themselves from the mass public in the amount and sources of information about the Court. They also hold near-universal perceptions of Court legitimacy, a result we use to derive competing theoretical expectations regarding the impact of ideological disagreement on various Court perceptions. Survey data sh…
Trial and Error
Nonlawyer advocates are one proposed solution to the access to justice crisis. Theory and research suggest that nonlawyers might be effective, yet scholars know very little, empirically, about nonlawyer practice in the United States. Using data from more than 5,000 unemployment insurance appeal hearings and interviews with lawyers and nonlawyers who represent employers in these hearings, this article explores how both types of representatives dev…
Blurring Institutional Boundaries
The legislature wields multiple tools to limit judicial power, but scholars have little information about how judges interpret variant threats and which they find most concerning. To provide insight, we conduct original interviews regarding legislative threats to courts with over two dozen sitting federal judges, representing all tiers of the federal judiciary. We find that judges have a nuanced understanding of threats and tend to identify compo…
Restraining the Court
We propose a multilevel account of legislative Court curbing in order to assess existing explanations as to why such proposals come about. We argue that although Court curbing is commonly seen as the result of institutional conflict between Congress and the Supreme Court, it is best understood as a product of three interrelated factors: the individual motivations on the part of lawmakers, the partisan context in which they operate, and institutio…
The Conditional Effectiveness of Legislative Threats
The separation-of-powers literature focuses on how the preferences of one branch constrain the behavior of its counterparts. Yet, in much of this work, scholars do not address how responsive behavior varies across particular members. Focusing on Court curbing legislation in Congress, we develop a model of heterogeneous responsiveness. Our theory identifies two distinct mechanisms that underpin responsiveness in judicial behavior, implying that th…
Perceptions of administrative policymaking authority
Two models, the hierarchical model and the local control model, drive the way we talk about the decisions court actors and judges make. However, neither considered in isolation is an adequate explanation of courts’ administrative policy choices during the Covid-19 pandemic. This paper explores how actors in state courts in the United States perceived and performed their policymaking capacity using elite interviews. It argues that considering feat…
Covid-19 Housing Policy
This article provides the first comprehensive description of federal and state housing policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning on March 13, 2020, the federal government, 43 states, the District of Columbia, and five American territories issued eviction moratoria that varied in terms of justification, the stage(s) of eviction frozen, the duration and source of protections, and the eligible population. There were cross-state differences…
Public campaign financing’s effects on judicial legitimacy
Although judicial elections are considered a method of keeping state courts—otherwise insulated from public pressure—accountable, the private financing of judicial campaigns has been met with significant criticism. In particular, the perception that campaign contributions can buy favorable case outcomes for contributors to judicial candidates may pose problems for judicial legitimacy. While some scholars and advocacy groups have advanced proposal…
Publishing Public Law
As expectations for research output evolve, tenure portfolios serve as valuable records of how a field gauges impact. We analyze the records of 184 Law and Courts faculty at PhD-granting institutions and find that the median portfolio has grown from seven to ten peer-reviewed articles, that scholars publish in a wider variety of outlets, and that coauthorship rates have doubled over our four-decade time period. We also note patterns of gendered c…
Law (10 works) · Political science (10 works) · Judicial and Constitutional Studies (9 works) · Law (8 works) · Legal and Constitutional Studies (5 works) · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems (4 works) · Legal Education and Practice Innovations (4 works) · Legislature (4 works) · Public Administration (4 works) · Supreme court (4 works)