JUDICIAL VOTING IN U.S. DISTRICT COURTS LOCATED IN THE SECOND AND FIFTH CIRCUITS IN FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CASES INVOLVING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

Abstract

This study examined the influence of party affiliation, as measured by the party of the appointing president; legal precedent; judicial circuit (Second or Fifth); race; gender; and prior prosecutorial experience on voting by U.S. District Court judges in First Amendment retaliation cases brought law enforcement officials against their employers. Applying binary logistic regression analyses to a data set comprised of 163 judicial votes with pro-plaintiff and pro-defendant voting serving as the dependent measure, the results indicated that only judges’ party affiliation had a significant effect on voting (Wald= 4.469, 1 df., p= .035) president. There was a .437 decrease in the odds of pro-plaintiff voting for Republican appointees compared to Democratic appointees with all other variables held constant. Thus, Republican appointees showed a greater tendency than Democratic appointees to favor the police department’s decision making when First Amendment challenges were brought by their employees. This deference to institutional judgments may reflect core philosophical differences in balancing individual Free Speech rights as against institutional stability and law and order. The paper discusses the implications of these findings for a more just and equitable society.