THE CONSEQUENCES OF SPECIALIZATION: DECISION MAKING IN U.S. FEDERAL SPECIALIZED COURTS Ryan J. Williams A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the College of Arts and Sciences. Chapel Hill 2019 Approved by: Kevin T. McGuire Isaac Unah Jason M. Roberts Virginia Gray Brett W. Curry © 2019 Ryan J. Williams ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Ryan J. Williams: The Consequences of Specialization: Decision Making in U.S. Federal Specialized Courts (Under the direction of Kevin T. McGuire) Political scientists have devoted little attention to the role of specialized courts in the United States federal and state judicial systems. At the federal level, theories of judicial decision making and institutional structures widely accepted in discussions of the U.S. Supreme Court and other generalist courts (the federal courts of appeals and district courts) have seen little examination in the context of specialized courts. In particular, scholars are just beginning to untangle the relationship between judicial expertise and decision making, as well as to understand how specialized courts interact with the bureaucratic agencies they review and the litigants who appear before them. In this dissertation, I examine the consequences of specialization in the federal judiciary. The first chapter introduces the landscape of existing federal specialized courts. The second chapter investigates the patterns of recent appointments to specialized courts, focusing specifically on how the qualifications of specialized court judges compare to those of generalists. The third chapter considers the role of expertise in a specialized court, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and argues that expertise enhances the ability for judges to apply their ideologies to complex, technical cases. The fourth chapter shifts focus to the impact of litigant resources, specifically attorney expertise, in specialized courts. The fifth chapter evaluates the role of law in a specialized court by examining how changes in legal standards of review impact specialized court judges’ decisions. Finally, the sixth chapter concludes. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Throughout this process, the prospect of writing these acknowledgements always seemed like the faint glimmer of light at the end of the proverbial tunnel. They may not have been “closer than they appear,” but they are here now nonetheless. First, I want to thank my family for their love and support. To my parents: thank you for encouraging me and giving me the support and tools to explore my interests. Thank you to my siblings: Jonathan, Lauren, and Nicole, for frequent conversations, games, and our shared experiences. To my grandmother: thank you for showing me the meaning of hard work and service. I want to thank the professors at UNC and beyond who helped shape my academic interests and offered me valuable advice as I navigated both graduate school and the academic job market. Thank you to my advisor, Kevin McGuire, for your comments and suggestions and for sticking with me as an advisee. Thank you to Isaac Unah for actively seeking me out as a co author and for introducing me to the world of specialized courts. To Jason Roberts, thank you for showing me the world of scoresheet and that institutions matter. Thank you to Virginia Gray for a wonderful introduction to teaching and for the feedback at State Politics Working Group. To Brett Curry, thank you for reading my dissertation and for being the best conference chair and discussant. Thank you also to Chris Clarke and the graduate student members of the State Politics Working Group for providing thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this project. To the administrative staff in the UNC political science department, you are the real heroes that make everything work. Thank you for all that you do. I met some great friends during my time at UNC-Chapel Hill, and their friendship and support helped me to persevere and finish this project. Thank you to Anthony Chergosky, Jelle Koedam, Andreas Jozwiak, Chelsea Estancona, Lindsay Reid, Matt Barrett, Devon Inman, Elizabeth Menninga, John Lovett, Rob Williams, and Kelsey Shoub for your friendship. To Lee Storrow: #LizzoinCarrboro. To Steven Sparks: We’ll always have Northside. Also, Go Canes! To the best roommates, Andrew Tyner, Eric Hansen, and Dan Gustafson: Bro House iv Forever! To Lucia Bird: thank you for sci-fi talks and pickleball. To Shep Stearns, Leah Christiani, Caroline Carlson and Amy Sentementes: “There’s a path you take, and a path not taken, the choice is up to you my friend.” Finally, to Lucy Britt, I could not have done this without you. Your encouragement, advice, and companionship mean the world to me. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTOFTABLES................................... ix LISTOFFIGURES.................................. xii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION . 1 Introduction . 1 Specialization in the Federal Judiciary . 6 Dissertation Overview . 10 CHAPTER 2: PATTERNS OF APPOINTMENTS TO SPECIALIZED COURTS . 13 Introduction . 13 Patterns of Appointments to Specialized Courts . 15 The Senate Attention Gap . 16 Patronage . 18 ABA Ratings . 21 Discussion and Conclusion . 25 CHAPTER 3: IN SEARCH OF EXPERTISE IN SPECIALIZED COURTS . 27 Introduction . 27 The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims . 29 Previous Occupation in Specialized Courts . 34 Theoretical Contributions . 39 Ideology and Expertise . 42 Ideology on the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims . 44 Data and Methods: Single-Judge Decisions . 45 Data and Methods: Panel Decisions . 50 vi Results . 52 Discussion and Conclusion . 65 CHAPTER 4: REPEAT PLAYERS IN SPECIALIZED COURTS . 69 Introduction . 69 The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit . 72 Party Capability Theory and Attorney Expertise . 73 Data and Methods . 77 Measuring Attorney Expertise . 79 Controls . 81 Results . 84 Discussion and Conclusion . 89 CHAPTER 5: LIKE A DEAD FISH . 91 Introduction . 91 Law, Standards of Review, and Jurisprudential Regimes . 92 Data . 97 Methods . 100 Results . 101 Discussion . 110 Conclusion . 112 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION . 113 Dissertation Overview . 113 Future Research . 119 Concluding Thoughts . 121 APPENDIX A: SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR CHAPTER 2 . 124 APPENDIX B: SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR CHAPTER 3 . 132 Descriptive Graphs and Figures . 132 vii Previous Occupation Analysis . 147 Extra Analysis . 156 APPENDIX C: SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR CHAPTER 4 . 166 APPENDIX D: SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR CHAPTER 5 . 169 REFERENCES . 171 viii LIST OF TABLES 1 Federal Specialized Jurisdiction Courts . 10 2 Generalist vs. Specialized Judges’ Confirmation Votes . 19 3 ABA Ratings of Article III Specialized Court Judges . 23 4 Comparing ABA Ratings of Specialized and Generalist Court Appointees . 24 5 Coding Rules: Components of Expertise . 48 6 Summary Statistics-Single-Judge Decisions Data . 50 7 Summary Statistics-Panel Decisions Data . 52 8 Mixed Effects Logit Results, CAVC Single-Judge Decisions . 54 9 Mixed Effects Logit Results, CAVC Panel Decisions . 61 10 Attorney Expertise . 75 11 Summary Statistics-Panel Decisions Data . 83 12 Logit Results, Sample of Federal Circuit Patent Decisions . 86 13 Summary Statistics: Weekly Data . 99 14 Weekly Regression Discontinuity Results . 103 15 Regression Discontinuity Estimates for Different Bandwidths and Specifications 109 16 Regression Discontinuity Estimates for Different Bandwidths and Specifications 110 17 Percentage of CAVC Merits Dispositions 2010-2016 . 111 18 Confirmation Votes of Judges of the Federal Specialized Jurisdiction Courts . 124 19 Confirmation Votes of Active Senior Judges of the Federal Specialized Courts . 125 20 Confirmation Votes of Judges of the Generalist Appellate Courts . 126 21 Confirmation Votes of Judges of the Generalist Appellate Courts . 127 22 Confirmation Votes of Judges of the Generalist Appellate Courts . 128 23 ABA Ratings of Judges of the Generalist Appellate Courts . 129 24 ABA Ratings of Judges of the Generalist Appellate Courts . 130 25 ABA Ratings of Judges of the Generalist Appellate Courts . 131 ix 26 Previous Experience of the Current Judges of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces . 132 27 Previous Experience of the Senior Judges of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces . 133 28 Previous Experience of the Current Judges of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit . 135 29 Previous Experience of the Senior Judges of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit . 136 30 Previous Experience of the Current Judges of the Court of Federal Claims . 137 31 Previous Experience of the Senior Judges of the Court of Federal Claims . 138 32 Previous Experience of the Current Judges of the Court of International Trade . 140 33 Previous Experience of the Senior Judges of the Court of International Trade . 140 34 Previous Experience of the Current Judges of the Tax Court . 142 35 Previous Experience of the Senior Judges of the Tax Court . 143 36 Previous Experience of the Current Judges of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims . 145 37 Previous Experience of the Senior Judges of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims . 146 38 Summary Statistics . 151 39 Mixed Effects Logit Results, CAVC Decisions 2010-2016 . 153 40 Mixed Effects Logit Results, CAVC Decisions 2010-2016 . 155 41 Mixed Effects Logit Results Ideology Centered, CAVC Decisions 2010-2016 . 157 42 Mixed Effects Logit Results, CAVC Single-Judge Decisions 2013-2016 . 158 43 Non-Centered Results . 159 44 Mixed Effects Logit Centered Results, CAVC Single-Judge Decisions . 160 45 Mixed Effects Logit Results, CAVC Single-Judge Decisions Mixed Cases Included . 161 46 Mixed Effects Logit Results, CAVC Panel Decisions with Ideology Centered . 162 47 Mixed Effects Logit Results, CAVC Panel Decisions Mixed Cases Included . 163 48 Mixed Effects Logit Results, CAVC Panel Decisions Two Random Intercepts . 164 x 49 Mixed Effects Logit Results, CAVC Panel Decisions with Fiscal Year Indicators 165 50 Logit Results, Sample of Federal Circuit Patent Decisions . 166 51 Weekly Regression Discontinuity Results . 169 52 Logit Results, CAVC Decisions . ..