Ryan J. Owens – författare

In the United States, federal judges occupy weighty positions. They interpret the Constitution, define people's rights and liberties, and apply laws and regulations to myriad cases. They also are older than ever. In 2023, the median age of a federal judge reached 70 for the first time. Nearly one-third of federal judges exceeded the age of 75. And ten percent were 85 years or older. The federal judiciary has become a graying judiciary. Recent advances in neuroscience show that cognitive aging leads to processing speed delays, a decline in executive functioning skills like reasoning and memory, and a greater reliance on cognitive shortcuts. Judges are not immune from these effects. Simply put, cognitive aging influences all people. Judges are people. And so cognitive aging must influence them. In Cognitive Aging and the Federal Circuit Courts: How Senescence Influences the Law and Judges, a distinguished team of authors investigates how cognitive aging influences federal circuit court judges. The first-of-their-kind results show that as judges age, they require more time to craft their opinions; they rely more on cognitive shortcuts; their opinions become less complex; they increasingly rely on others to help them write opinions; and their legal influence on panels wanes just as their susceptibility to persuasion increases. These results are sure to transform broad debates about institutional reform.

In the United States, federal judges occupy weighty positions. They interpret the Constitution, define people's rights and liberties, and apply laws and regulations to myriad cases. They also are older than ever. In 2023, the median age of a federal judge reached 70 for the first time. Nearly one-third of federal judges exceeded the age of 75. And ten percent were 85 years or older. The federal judiciary has become a graying judiciary. Recent advances in neuroscience show that cognitive aging leads to processing speed delays, a decline in executive functioning skills like reasoning and memory, and a greater reliance on cognitive shortcuts. Judges are not immune from these effects. Simply put, cognitive aging influences all people. Judges are people. And so cognitive aging must influence them. In Cognitive Aging and the Federal Circuit Courts: How Senescence Influences the Law and Judges, a distinguished team of authors investigates how cognitive aging influences federal circuit court judges. The first-of-their-kind results show that as judges age, they require more time to craft their opinions; they rely more on cognitive shortcuts; their opinions become less complex; they increasingly rely on others to help them write opinions; and their legal influence on panels wanes just as their susceptibility to persuasion increases. These results are sure to transform broad debates about institutional reform.

In the United States, federal judges occupy weighty positions. They interpret the Constitution, define people's rights and liberties, and apply laws and regulations to myriad cases. They also are older than ever. In 2023, the median age of a federal judge reached 70 for the first time. Nearly one-third of federal judges exceeded the age of 75. And ten percent were 85 years or older. The federal judiciary has become a graying judiciary. Recent advances in neuroscience show that cognitive aging leads to processing speed delays, a decline in executive functioning skills like reasoning and memory, and a greater reliance on cognitive shortcuts. Judges are not immune from these effects. Simply put, cognitive aging influences all people. Judges are people. And so cognitive aging must influence them. In Cognitive Aging and the Federal Circuit Courts: How Senescence Influences the Law and Judges, a distinguished team of authors investigates how cognitive aging influences federal circuit court judges. The first-of-their-kind results show that as judges age, they require more time to craft their opinions; they rely more on cognitive shortcuts; their opinions become less complex; they increasingly rely on others to help them write opinions; and their legal influence on panels wanes just as their susceptibility to persuasion increases. These results are sure to transform broad debates about institutional reform.

The United States government, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, appears before the Supreme Court more than any other litigant. The Office's link to the president, the arguments it makes before the Court and its ability to alter the legal and policy landscape make it the most important Supreme Court litigant bar none. As such, scholars must understand the Office's role in Supreme Court decision making and its ability to influence the Court. It examines whether and how the Office of the Solicitor General influences the United States Supreme Court. Combining archival data with recent innovations in the areas of matching and causal inference, the book finds that the Solicitor General influences every aspect of the Court's decision-making process. From granting review to cases, selecting winning parties, writing opinions and interpreting precedent, the Solicitor General's office influences the Court to behave in ways it otherwise would not.

This book is the first study specifically to investigate the extent to which US Supreme Court justices alter the clarity of their opinions based on expected reactions from their audiences. The authors examine this dynamic by creating a unique measure of opinion clarity and then testing whether the Court writes clearer opinions when it faces ideologically hostile and ideologically scattered lower federal courts; when it decides cases involving poorly performing federal agencies; when it decides cases involving states with less professionalized legislatures and governors; and when it rules against public opinion. The data shows the Court writes clearer opinions in every one of these contexts, and demonstrates that actors are more likely to comply with clearer Court opinions.

United States Supreme Court justices make decisions that have a profound impact on American society. Empirical legal scholars have portrayed justices as either single-minded or strategic seekers of policy, and there is little room in these theories for things like law, reputation, or personality. This book offers a fresh perspective that will jar Supreme Court scholarship out of complacency. It argues that justices' personalities influence their behavior, which in turn influences legal development and the United States Constitution. This impressive group of authors exhaustively examine every part of the Court's decision-making process, and focus on the trait of conscientiousness and how it influences justices over nine different empirical contexts, from agenda setting to writing the Court's opinions. The Conscientious Justice is an important and comprehensive account of judging that restructures existing approaches to analyzing the High Court.

The United States government, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, appears before the Supreme Court more than any other litigant. The Office's link to the president, the arguments it makes before the Court and its ability to alter the legal and policy landscape make it the most important Supreme Court litigant bar none. As such, scholars must understand the Office's role in Supreme Court decision making and its ability to influence the Court. It examines whether and how the Office of the Solicitor General influences the United States Supreme Court. Combining archival data with recent innovations in the areas of matching and causal inference, the book finds that the Solicitor General influences every aspect of the Court's decision-making process. From granting review to cases, selecting winning parties, writing opinions and interpreting precedent, the Solicitor General's office influences the Court to behave in ways it otherwise would not.

This book is the first study specifically to investigate the extent to which US Supreme Court justices alter the clarity of their opinions based on expected reactions from their audiences. The authors examine this dynamic by creating a unique measure of opinion clarity and then testing whether the Court writes clearer opinions when it faces ideologically hostile and ideologically scattered lower federal courts; when it decides cases involving poorly performing federal agencies; when it decides cases involving states with less professionalized legislatures and governors; and when it rules against public opinion. The data shows the Court writes clearer opinions in every one of these contexts, and demonstrates that actors are more likely to comply with clearer Court opinions.

United States Supreme Court justices make decisions that have a profound impact on American society. Empirical legal scholars have portrayed justices as either single-minded or strategic seekers of policy, and there is little room in these theories for things like law, reputation, or personality. This book offers a fresh perspective that will jar Supreme Court scholarship out of complacency. It argues that justices' personalities influence their behavior, which in turn influences legal development and the United States Constitution. This impressive group of authors exhaustively examine every part of the Court's decision-making process, and focus on the trait of conscientiousness and how it influences justices over nine different empirical contexts, from agenda setting to writing the Court's opinions. The Conscientious Justice is an important and comprehensive account of judging that restructures existing approaches to analyzing the High Court.