Paul M. Collins, Jr. is a Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Collins is the author of four books and dozens of journal articles on American law and politics, and his research has been funded by the Dirksen Congressional Center and the National Science Foundation. His research and commentary have appeared in a host of popular media outlets, including CNN, the New York Times, National Public Radio, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. His research focuses on understanding bias and inequality in the legal system, the selection and work of judges, and social movement litigation.
While there has been a substantial amount of research on the strategic behavior of political acto... more While there has been a substantial amount of research on the strategic behavior of political actors, the literature is rife with conflicting findings. We contribute to this debate by examining whether U.S. court of appeals judges dissent for the purpose of inviting en banc and/or Supreme Court review. We dissect aspects of modeling strategic behavior, particularly relating to problems of multicollinearity. We explore these issues by examining the dissenting behavior of court of appeals judges from 1970-2002. Our findings indicate that court of appeals judges strategically dissent, but this behavior is seldom captured by traditional quantitative approaches to modeling judicial behavior. Though our focus is on court of appeals judges, we are confident our conclusions can inform studies of strategic behavior in a variety of political contexts. PAPER PREPARED FOR DELIVERY AT THE 69 ANNUAL MEETING OF THE MIDWEST POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, MARCH 31-APRIL 3, 2011 ___...
This article uses an original database of confirmation hearing dialogue to examine how the Senate... more This article uses an original database of confirmation hearing dialogue to examine how the Senate Judiciary Committee's role in Supreme Court confirmations has changed over time, with particular attention paid to the 1939–2010 era. During this period, several notable developments took place, including a rise in the number of hearing comments, increased attention to nominees’ views of judicial decisions, an expansion of the scope of issues addressed, and the equalization of questioning between majority and minority party senators. We demonstrate that these changes were shaped by both endogenous and exogenous factors to promote the legitimization of the Judiciary Committee's role in the confirmation process and to foster the instrumental goals of senators. This research contributes to our understanding of the development of political institutions, interbranch interactions, and how institutional change affects the behavior of legal and political actors.
Scholars have devoted a great deal of research to investigating the role and influence of the U.S... more Scholars have devoted a great deal of research to investigating the role and influence of the U.S. solicitor general (SG) as amicus curiae in the Supreme Court. Yet, we know little about the SG's decision to file an amicus brief and how this relates to the SG's success on the merits. We fill this void by examining legal, political, and administrative factors that affect the SG's decision to participate as amicus curiae. We subject our hypotheses to empirical testing using data on the 1953 to 1999 Supreme Court terms by linking the SG's decision to file an amicus brief to the SG's ultimate success on the merits, employing a Heckman-style selection model. We find that the SG's decision to file an amicus brief is influenced by legal, political, and administrative considerations, suggesting that the SG is best viewed through the incorporation of a variety of theoretical perspectives.
Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. 2008. New York, NY: O... more Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. 2008. New York, NY: Oxford
Scholars have devoted a great deal of research to investigating the role and influence of the U.S... more Scholars have devoted a great deal of research to investigating the role and influence of the U.S. Solicitor General (SG) as amicus curiae in the Supreme Court. Yet, we know little about the SG’s decision to file an amicus brief and how this relates to the SG’s success on the merits. We fill this void by examining legal, political, and administrative factors that affect the SG’s decision to participate as amicus curiae. We subject our hypotheses to empirical testing utilizing data on the 1953-1999 Supreme Court terms by linking the SG’s decision to file an amicus brief to the SG’s ultimate success on the merits, employing a Heckman-style selection model. We find that the SG’s decision to file an amicus brief, and the SG’s success on the merits, is influenced by legal, political, and administrative considerations, suggesting that the SG is best viewed through the incorporation of a variety of theoretical perspectives.
While there has been a substantial amount of research on the strategic behavior of political acto... more While there has been a substantial amount of research on the strategic behavior of political actors, the literature is rife with conflicting findings. We contribute to this debate by examining whether U.S. court of appeals judges dissent for the purpose of inviting en banc and/or Supreme Court review. We dissect aspects of modeling strategic behavior, particularly relating to problems of multicollinearity. We explore these issues by examining the dissenting behavior of court of appeals judges from 1970-2002. Our findings indicate that court of appeals judges strategically dissent, but this behavior is seldom captured by traditional quantitative approaches to modeling judicial behavior. Though our focus is on court of appeals judges, we are confident our conclusions can inform studies of strategic behavior in a variety of political contexts. PAPER PREPARED FOR DELIVERY AT THE 69 ANNUAL MEETING OF THE MIDWEST POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, MARCH 31-APRIL 3, 2011 ___...
This article uses an original database of confirmation hearing dialogue to examine how the Senate... more This article uses an original database of confirmation hearing dialogue to examine how the Senate Judiciary Committee's role in Supreme Court confirmations has changed over time, with particular attention paid to the 1939–2010 era. During this period, several notable developments took place, including a rise in the number of hearing comments, increased attention to nominees’ views of judicial decisions, an expansion of the scope of issues addressed, and the equalization of questioning between majority and minority party senators. We demonstrate that these changes were shaped by both endogenous and exogenous factors to promote the legitimization of the Judiciary Committee's role in the confirmation process and to foster the instrumental goals of senators. This research contributes to our understanding of the development of political institutions, interbranch interactions, and how institutional change affects the behavior of legal and political actors.
Scholars have devoted a great deal of research to investigating the role and influence of the U.S... more Scholars have devoted a great deal of research to investigating the role and influence of the U.S. solicitor general (SG) as amicus curiae in the Supreme Court. Yet, we know little about the SG's decision to file an amicus brief and how this relates to the SG's success on the merits. We fill this void by examining legal, political, and administrative factors that affect the SG's decision to participate as amicus curiae. We subject our hypotheses to empirical testing using data on the 1953 to 1999 Supreme Court terms by linking the SG's decision to file an amicus brief to the SG's ultimate success on the merits, employing a Heckman-style selection model. We find that the SG's decision to file an amicus brief is influenced by legal, political, and administrative considerations, suggesting that the SG is best viewed through the incorporation of a variety of theoretical perspectives.
Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. 2008. New York, NY: O... more Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. 2008. New York, NY: Oxford
Scholars have devoted a great deal of research to investigating the role and influence of the U.S... more Scholars have devoted a great deal of research to investigating the role and influence of the U.S. Solicitor General (SG) as amicus curiae in the Supreme Court. Yet, we know little about the SG’s decision to file an amicus brief and how this relates to the SG’s success on the merits. We fill this void by examining legal, political, and administrative factors that affect the SG’s decision to participate as amicus curiae. We subject our hypotheses to empirical testing utilizing data on the 1953-1999 Supreme Court terms by linking the SG’s decision to file an amicus brief to the SG’s ultimate success on the merits, employing a Heckman-style selection model. We find that the SG’s decision to file an amicus brief, and the SG’s success on the merits, is influenced by legal, political, and administrative considerations, suggesting that the SG is best viewed through the incorporation of a variety of theoretical perspectives.
Uploads
Papers by Paul Collins