Legitimating Massive Resistance: The Use of 'Race-Neutral Jurisprudence to Entrench White Supremacy
In this piece, I argue that the Supreme Court's decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission has the effect of drowning out political participation by communities of color, by allowing wealthy participants - who are overwhelmingly white - to spend essentially unlimited amounts of money to influence federal elections. I test this argument by evaluating 2014 aggregate contributions with the 2010 aggregate contribution limits (to control for Presidential years), and then correlating the 2014 aggregate contributions with Census data correlating income and race. I do not have results to report at this time.
And the Spirit of the LORD Spake Within Them: The Use of Biblical Authority by State Supreme Courts, 1995-1998
This piece argues that the use of extralegal authority in judicial opinions is corrosive to a multiethnic democracy, as non-legal authority is culturally signified and thus excludes those members of the democracy that are not within that culture. I test this by examining the citation to the Bible in cases included in Brace and Hall's State Supreme Court Data Project. I find that state supreme courts rarely cite to the Bible, but that when they do, it is in the manner expected.
Building Judicial Independence: A Textual Analysis of the Judicial Response to Executive Power Claims
The executive branch frequently makes extralegal or illegal claims to power which may be based in an argument sounding in law or force majeure. As the defender of the rule of law, it falls to the judiciary to evaluate and resolve these claims when they are disputed. Using a most-similar cross-national case study analysis, I examine the judicial response to executive power claims in two institutionally weak judicial systems: the antebellum United States, and the pre-1971 (pre-secession) Pakistan. I find that courts frequently fail to challenge the executive's assertions of power, and that they do so in predictable ways.
Intervention Unnecessary: Bar Associations Picking Sides in Regulatory Actions
In 2014, two national professional lawyers' associations inserted themselves into government processes, purporting to represent a professional consensus. The American Bar Association submitted a public comment on the Department of Labor's new proposed "persuader rule," asking the Department not to adopt the rule, and the Canadian Bar Association sought neutral intervenor status before the Supreme Court of Canada to urge that court not to adopt a broader approach to corporate liability. Both of these interventions were offered as the position of the legal profession in their respective countries. I examine the effect of these associations' positions on the final outcome in these government actions, using a most-similar cross-national case study, and additionally reviewing the ABA's effect on Boumediene v. United States, where it probably did represent a professional consensus. As both cases are, as of this writing, ongoing, I do not have preliminary results to report.
The Judiciary as a Regulator of Violence
Scholars who study the relationship between law and violence tend to fall into two categories: those studying the development of nonviolent dispute resolution mechanisms out of self-help regimes, and those studying existing judicial systems' responses to systemic shocks. This piece combines both approaches to review the American judiciary's ability to regulate political violence. Using a longitudinal case-study analysis, it argues that the American courts have been engaged in a project of becoming the only appropriate regulators of political violence, as demonstrated by the system's growing ability to defy the wishes of the state and other violent actors.
Twelve Men of Average Ignorance: Using Election Results to Predict Jury Verdicts
This piece argues that election results can predict jury verdicts in employment discrimination cases. I correlate county-level election results with jury verdicts. I do not have results at this time.
EEOC Proceedings as Tests of Prejudice: A New Approach to Reactions to Diversity (with George Hawley)
Group threat theory argues that as group members experience contact with out-group individuals, that they grow more hostile and biased against the out-group. While the evidence supporting group threat as a reaction to diversity is inconsistent, it appears to be relatively strong within the United States. We suggest a new method of measuring prejudice toward out-groups, based on the relationship between Equal Employment Opportunity Commission discrimination proceedings and the minority unemployment rate. We test this method using a variety of analytical methods.