IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-05012949.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Motivated reasoning in the field: polarization of prose, precedent, and policy in U.S. Circuit Courts, 1891–2013

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Lu

    (Baruch College [CUNY] - CUNY - City University of New York [New York])

  • Daniel L. Chen

    (TSE-R - Toulouse School of Economics - UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - UT - Université de Toulouse - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

Abstract

This study explores politically motivated reasoning among U.S. Circuit Court judges over the past 120 years, examining their writing style and use of previous case citations in judicial opinions. Employing natural language processing and supervised machine learn- ing, we scrutinize how judges' language choices and legal citations reflect partisan slant. Our findings reveal a consistent, albeit modest, polarization in citation practices. More notably, there is a significant increase in polarization within the textual content of opin-ions, indicating a stronger presence of motivated reasoning in their prose. We also exam-ine the impact of heightened scrutiny on judicial reasoning. On divided panels and as midterm elections draw near, judges show an increase in dissent votes while decreas-ing in polarization in both writing and citation practices. Furthermore, our study explores polarization dynamics among judges who are potential candidates for Supreme Court promotion. We observe that judges on the shortlist for Supreme Court vacancies demonstrate greater polarization in their selection of precedents

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Lu & Daniel L. Chen, 2025. "Motivated reasoning in the field: polarization of prose, precedent, and policy in U.S. Circuit Courts, 1891–2013," Post-Print hal-05012949, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05012949
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318790
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-05012949v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-05012949v1/document
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0318790?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
    ---><---

    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:hal:journl:hal-05012949. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.