Ali S Masood
Biographic Data
| ID | 4122597 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Ali S Masood |
| GIVEN NAMES | Ali S |
| FAMILY NAME | Masood |
| SIGNATURE | MASOOD A S |
| AFFILIATIONS | Oberlin College |
| ORCID | 0000-0003-1564-4477 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 11 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 27 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 11 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2013 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2024 |
| H-INDEX | 3 |
The Rule of Law in Red and Blue: Affective Polarization and Support for Legal Institutions in the United States
A defining feature of democracies is an independent legal system, where elites and the public alike accept the broader legitimacy of its actions, even if they run counter to political preferences. Existing scholarship suggests that public support for rule of law institutions is rooted in perceptions of procedural fairness. However, amid increasing levels of affective polarization, we posit a partisan presidential heuristic wherein citizens’ views…
Lower Court Influence on High Courts: Evidence from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Do lower court judges influence the content of Supreme Court opinions in the United Kingdom? Leveraging original data, we analyze opinion language adoption practices of the UK Supreme Court. We advance a theory where the justices’ choices to adopt language from lower court opinions are influenced by Supreme Court-level attributes and Court of Appeal case characteristics. We uncover compelling evidence that UK Supreme Court justices incorporate la…
Hierarchical Interactions and Compliance in Comparative Courts
Given their place within the judicial hierarchy, judges on lower courts face a complex array of challenges including heavy caseloads, mandatory dockets, and the threat of Supreme Court reversal. Despite the extensive scholarship on the American courts, little is known about judicial interactions in comparative contexts. We articulate and evaluate a framework for lower court adherence to Supreme Court precedents by leveraging a cross-national desi…
Your Honor’s Misdeeds: The Consequences of Judicial Scandal on Specific and Diffuse Support
Legitimacy is a bulwark for courts; even when judges engage in controversial or disagreeable behavior, the public tends to acquiesce. Recent studies identify several threats to the legitimacy of courts, including polarization and attacks by political elites. This article contributes to the scholarly discourse by exploring a previously unconsidered threat: scandal, or allegations of personal misbehavior. We argue that scandals can undermine confid…
What’s in a Name: How US Supreme Court Justices Shape Law and Policy in the Lower Courts
We investigate whether inherent differences between the majority opinions of US Supreme Court justices result in certain justices being systematically more influential compared to their peers. We offer a theory in which lower court adoption of the Supreme Court’s precedents are influenced through justice opinion attributes, case characteristics, and circuit-level influences. To test the predictions, we examine the universe of responses by US Cour…
Trailblazer women in the Supreme Court of Canada
How do judges decide issues of equality? While prior scholarship demonstrates that judicial attributes such as partisan identification, gender, race, age, and career backgrounds help elucidate judicial decision-making, considerably less attention has been devoted to how judicial empathy may influence or condition judicial decision-making. Such scholarly attention is especially lacking in the study of courts outside of the United States. To bridge…
The Sum of its Parts: How Supreme Court Justices Disparately Shape Attention to Their Opinions
Objective While studies frequently examine the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court as an institution, little is known about how individual justices influence attention to their opinions. We investigate whether inherent differences in the majority opinions of individual justices result in certain justices being systematically more influential than their peers. Methods We advance a theory in which Supreme Court adoption of prior opinions is influenced…
United Kingdom, United Courts? Hierarchical Interactions and Attention to Precedent in the British Judiciary
Most empirical examinations of hierarchical interactions among the courts are limited to a single judiciary, the American courts. A significant puzzle that remains is the extent to which lower courts in comparative environments follow the legal pronouncements of their court of last resort. We confront this shortcoming by examining lower court adherence to the precedents of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom. As the Law Lords in the United K…
The Aggregate Dynamics of Lower Court Responses to the US Supreme Court
We argue that given finite resources to review the large number of lower court decisions, Supreme Court justices should primarily be interested in aggregate responses to their precedents. We offer a theory in which the US Supreme Court drives aggregate responses to its decisions by signaling the utility of its precedents to judges on the lower courts. Specifically, we argue that lower court judges have a greater propensity to rely on a Supreme Co…
Supreme Court Precedent in a Judicial Hierarchy
We offer a novel theory on Supreme Court impact that makes several key contributions beyond existing accounts. We argue that policy-oriented justices are particularly attentive to the impact of their precedents within the U.S. Courts of Appeals. We provide a framework in which both Supreme Court and circuit-level influences drive U.S. Courts of Appeals responses to the Supreme Court’s precedents. Principally, we argue that the Supreme Court’s use…
Reevaluating the Implications of Decision-Making Models: The Role of Summary Decisions in US Supreme Court Analysis
Most empirical analyses of the US Supreme Court are limited to the Court’s plenary decisions. We contend that summary decisions are an important component of the total decisional output of the Court and, as such, should be included in any overall assessment of the decision making of the Court or its impact on the courts below. We analyze the universe of the Court’s summary decisions from 1995 to 2005. We assess the conventional wisdom that a cons…
Your Honor’s Misdeeds: The Consequences of Judicial Scandal on Specific and Diffuse Support
Legitimacy is a bulwark for courts; even when judges engage in controversial or disagreeable behavior, the public tends to acquiesce. Recent studies identify several threats to the legitimacy of courts, including polarization and attacks by political elites. This article contributes to the scholarly discourse by exploring a previously unconsidered threat: scandal, or allegations of personal misbehavior. We argue that scandals can undermine confid…
The Aggregate Dynamics of Lower Court Responses to the US Supreme Court
We argue that given finite resources to review the large number of lower court decisions, Supreme Court justices should primarily be interested in aggregate responses to their precedents. We offer a theory in which the US Supreme Court drives aggregate responses to its decisions by signaling the utility of its precedents to judges on the lower courts. Specifically, we argue that lower court judges have a greater propensity to rely on a Supreme Co…
What’s in a Name: How US Supreme Court Justices Shape Law and Policy in the Lower Courts
We investigate whether inherent differences between the majority opinions of US Supreme Court justices result in certain justices being systematically more influential compared to their peers. We offer a theory in which lower court adoption of the Supreme Court’s precedents are influenced through justice opinion attributes, case characteristics, and circuit-level influences. To test the predictions, we examine the universe of responses by US Cour…
Reevaluating the Implications of Decision-Making Models: The Role of Summary Decisions in US Supreme Court Analysis
Most empirical analyses of the US Supreme Court are limited to the Court’s plenary decisions. We contend that summary decisions are an important component of the total decisional output of the Court and, as such, should be included in any overall assessment of the decision making of the Court or its impact on the courts below. We analyze the universe of the Court’s summary decisions from 1995 to 2005. We assess the conventional wisdom that a cons…
The Rule of Law in Red and Blue: Affective Polarization and Support for Legal Institutions in the United States
A defining feature of democracies is an independent legal system, where elites and the public alike accept the broader legitimacy of its actions, even if they run counter to political preferences. Existing scholarship suggests that public support for rule of law institutions is rooted in perceptions of procedural fairness. However, amid increasing levels of affective polarization, we posit a partisan presidential heuristic wherein citizens’ views…
Trailblazer women in the Supreme Court of Canada
How do judges decide issues of equality? While prior scholarship demonstrates that judicial attributes such as partisan identification, gender, race, age, and career backgrounds help elucidate judicial decision-making, considerably less attention has been devoted to how judicial empathy may influence or condition judicial decision-making. Such scholarly attention is especially lacking in the study of courts outside of the United States. To bridge…
The Sum of its Parts: How Supreme Court Justices Disparately Shape Attention to Their Opinions
Objective While studies frequently examine the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court as an institution, little is known about how individual justices influence attention to their opinions. We investigate whether inherent differences in the majority opinions of individual justices result in certain justices being systematically more influential than their peers. Methods We advance a theory in which Supreme Court adoption of prior opinions is influenced…
United Kingdom, United Courts? Hierarchical Interactions and Attention to Precedent in the British Judiciary
Most empirical examinations of hierarchical interactions among the courts are limited to a single judiciary, the American courts. A significant puzzle that remains is the extent to which lower courts in comparative environments follow the legal pronouncements of their court of last resort. We confront this shortcoming by examining lower court adherence to the precedents of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom. As the Law Lords in the United K…
Supreme Court Precedent in a Judicial Hierarchy
We offer a novel theory on Supreme Court impact that makes several key contributions beyond existing accounts. We argue that policy-oriented justices are particularly attentive to the impact of their precedents within the U.S. Courts of Appeals. We provide a framework in which both Supreme Court and circuit-level influences drive U.S. Courts of Appeals responses to the Supreme Court’s precedents. Principally, we argue that the Supreme Court’s use…
Lower Court Influence on High Courts: Evidence from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Do lower court judges influence the content of Supreme Court opinions in the United Kingdom? Leveraging original data, we analyze opinion language adoption practices of the UK Supreme Court. We advance a theory where the justices’ choices to adopt language from lower court opinions are influenced by Supreme Court-level attributes and Court of Appeal case characteristics. We uncover compelling evidence that UK Supreme Court justices incorporate la…
Hierarchical Interactions and Compliance in Comparative Courts
Given their place within the judicial hierarchy, judges on lower courts face a complex array of challenges including heavy caseloads, mandatory dockets, and the threat of Supreme Court reversal. Despite the extensive scholarship on the American courts, little is known about judicial interactions in comparative contexts. We articulate and evaluate a framework for lower court adherence to Supreme Court precedents by leveraging a cross-national desi…
Reevaluating the Implications of Decision-Making Models: The Role of Summary Decisions in US Supreme Court Analysis
Most empirical analyses of the US Supreme Court are limited to the Court’s plenary decisions. We contend that summary decisions are an important component of the total decisional output of the Court and, as such, should be included in any overall assessment of the decision making of the Court or its impact on the courts below. We analyze the universe of the Court’s summary decisions from 1995 to 2005. We assess the conventional wisdom that a cons…
Supreme Court Precedent in a Judicial Hierarchy
We offer a novel theory on Supreme Court impact that makes several key contributions beyond existing accounts. We argue that policy-oriented justices are particularly attentive to the impact of their precedents within the U.S. Courts of Appeals. We provide a framework in which both Supreme Court and circuit-level influences drive U.S. Courts of Appeals responses to the Supreme Court’s precedents. Principally, we argue that the Supreme Court’s use…
The Aggregate Dynamics of Lower Court Responses to the US Supreme Court
We argue that given finite resources to review the large number of lower court decisions, Supreme Court justices should primarily be interested in aggregate responses to their precedents. We offer a theory in which the US Supreme Court drives aggregate responses to its decisions by signaling the utility of its precedents to judges on the lower courts. Specifically, we argue that lower court judges have a greater propensity to rely on a Supreme Co…
The Sum of its Parts: How Supreme Court Justices Disparately Shape Attention to Their Opinions
Objective While studies frequently examine the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court as an institution, little is known about how individual justices influence attention to their opinions. We investigate whether inherent differences in the majority opinions of individual justices result in certain justices being systematically more influential than their peers. Methods We advance a theory in which Supreme Court adoption of prior opinions is influenced…
United Kingdom, United Courts? Hierarchical Interactions and Attention to Precedent in the British Judiciary
Most empirical examinations of hierarchical interactions among the courts are limited to a single judiciary, the American courts. A significant puzzle that remains is the extent to which lower courts in comparative environments follow the legal pronouncements of their court of last resort. We confront this shortcoming by examining lower court adherence to the precedents of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom. As the Law Lords in the United K…
Trailblazer women in the Supreme Court of Canada
How do judges decide issues of equality? While prior scholarship demonstrates that judicial attributes such as partisan identification, gender, race, age, and career backgrounds help elucidate judicial decision-making, considerably less attention has been devoted to how judicial empathy may influence or condition judicial decision-making. Such scholarly attention is especially lacking in the study of courts outside of the United States. To bridge…
What’s in a Name: How US Supreme Court Justices Shape Law and Policy in the Lower Courts
We investigate whether inherent differences between the majority opinions of US Supreme Court justices result in certain justices being systematically more influential compared to their peers. We offer a theory in which lower court adoption of the Supreme Court’s precedents are influenced through justice opinion attributes, case characteristics, and circuit-level influences. To test the predictions, we examine the universe of responses by US Cour…
Lower Court Influence on High Courts: Evidence from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Do lower court judges influence the content of Supreme Court opinions in the United Kingdom? Leveraging original data, we analyze opinion language adoption practices of the UK Supreme Court. We advance a theory where the justices’ choices to adopt language from lower court opinions are influenced by Supreme Court-level attributes and Court of Appeal case characteristics. We uncover compelling evidence that UK Supreme Court justices incorporate la…
Hierarchical Interactions and Compliance in Comparative Courts
Given their place within the judicial hierarchy, judges on lower courts face a complex array of challenges including heavy caseloads, mandatory dockets, and the threat of Supreme Court reversal. Despite the extensive scholarship on the American courts, little is known about judicial interactions in comparative contexts. We articulate and evaluate a framework for lower court adherence to Supreme Court precedents by leveraging a cross-national desi…
Your Honor’s Misdeeds: The Consequences of Judicial Scandal on Specific and Diffuse Support
Legitimacy is a bulwark for courts; even when judges engage in controversial or disagreeable behavior, the public tends to acquiesce. Recent studies identify several threats to the legitimacy of courts, including polarization and attacks by political elites. This article contributes to the scholarly discourse by exploring a previously unconsidered threat: scandal, or allegations of personal misbehavior. We argue that scandals can undermine confid…
The Rule of Law in Red and Blue: Affective Polarization and Support for Legal Institutions in the United States
A defining feature of democracies is an independent legal system, where elites and the public alike accept the broader legitimacy of its actions, even if they run counter to political preferences. Existing scholarship suggests that public support for rule of law institutions is rooted in perceptions of procedural fairness. However, amid increasing levels of affective polarization, we posit a partisan presidential heuristic wherein citizens’ views…
Judicial and Constitutional Studies (11 works) · Law (11 works) · Political science (11 works) · Supreme court (8 works) · Law (7 works) · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems (7 works) · Original jurisdiction (7 works) · Majority opinion (6 works) · Concurring opinion (5 works) · Court of record (5 works)