IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/rlecon/v16y2020i2p24n1004.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Free Speech in Public Employment: Has the Supreme Court Clarified Matters? An Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Lane v Franks

Author

Listed:
  • Connolly John P.

    (Office of Information Technology, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas76019, USA)

  • Wasserman Lewis M.

    (Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas76019, USA)

Abstract

We employ a counterfactual treatment effect analysis to evaluate whether U.S. Courts of Appeals judges have changed their propensity to vote against plaintiffs in public employment free speech disputes following the Supreme Court’s 2015 Lane v Franks decision. In order to ensure a like-for-like comparison of votes before and after the Lane decision we employ a variant of the “straddle” approach, which entails identifying cases caught in the crosshairs of the upper court’s ruling and then comparing the votes with those of cases already decided. Our results underscore the importance of paying close attention to selection effects when evaluating the impact of legal changes on judicial behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Connolly John P. & Wasserman Lewis M., 2020. "Free Speech in Public Employment: Has the Supreme Court Clarified Matters? An Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Lane v Franks," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 1-24.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:16:y:2020:i:2:p:24:n:1004
    DOI: 10.1515/rle-2019-0030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2019-0030
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/rle-2019-0030?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:16:y:2020:i:2:p:24:n:1004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.