IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v20y2023i1p4-85.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Asymmetric review of qualified immunity appeals

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander A. Reinert

Abstract

This article presents results from the most comprehensive study to date of the resolution of qualified immunity in the federal courts of appeals and the US Supreme Court. By analyzing more than 4000 appellate decisions issued between 2004 and 2015, this study provides novel insights into how courts of appeals resolve arguments for qualified immunity. Moreover, by conducting an unprecedented analysis of certiorari practice, this study reveals how the US Supreme Court has exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in the area of qualified immunity. The data presented here have significant implications for civil rights enforcement and the uniformity of federal law. They show that qualified immunity, when deployed, often bars relief for plaintiffs. Moreover, they show that courts of appeals reverse decisions to deny qualified immunity far more often than they reverse decisions to grant qualified immunity, and that this asymmetric review is correlated with traditional indicators of judicial ideology, among other variables. Significantly, the data also suggest that the asymmetric review that characterizes appellate decisions is also present in the Supreme Court's certiorari practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander A. Reinert, 2023. "Asymmetric review of qualified immunity appeals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 4-85, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:20:y:2023:i:1:p:4-85
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12339
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12339?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Theodore Eisenberg, 2015. "Four Decades of Federal Civil Rights Litigation," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 4-28, March.
    2. Kevin M. Clermont & Stewart J. Schwab, 2004. "How Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs Fare in Federal Court," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), pages 429-458, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mark D. Gough, 2018. "How Do Organizational Environments and Mandatory Arbitration Shape Employment Attorney Case Selection? Evidence from an Experimental Vignette," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 541-567, October.
    2. Stephen J. Choi & Jill E. Fisch & A. C. Pritchard, 2010. "Attorneys as Arbitrators," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(1), pages 109-157, January.
    3. Jennifer Bennett Shinall, 2016. "What happens when the definition of disability changes? The case of obesity," IZA Journal of Labor Economics, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, December.
    4. Mark D. Gough & Alexander J. S. Colvin, 2020. "Decision-Maker and Context Effects in Employment Arbitration," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 73(2), pages 479-497, March.
    5. Douglas Mahony & Brian Klaas, 2008. "Comparative Dispute Resolution in the Workplace," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 251-271, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:empleg:v:20:y:2023:i:1:p:4-85. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    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.