While theoretical justifications predict that a judge's gender and race may influence judicial decisions, empirical support for these arguments has been mixed. However, recent increases in judicial diversity necessitate a reexamination of these earlier studies. Rather than examining individual judges on a single characteristic, such as gender or race alone, this research note argues that the intersection of individual characteristics may provide an alternative approach for evaluating the effects of diversity on the federal appellate bench. The results of cohort models examining the joint effects of race and gender suggest that minority female judges are more likely to support criminal defendants' claims when compared to their colleagues on the bench, even after controlling for other important factors. This suggests that our understanding of judicial behaviors may be assisted by the inclusion of how individual characteristics overlap rather than examining those characteristics alone.

This article uses social movement theory to explain variation in local support for proposed constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage in 22 states during 2004 and 2006. Copyright (c) 2009 by the Southwestern Social Science Association.

Underlying scholarly interest in diversity is the premise that a representative body contributes to robust decision-making processes. Using an innovative measure of opinion content, we examine this premise by analyzing deliberative outputs in the US courts of appeals (1997-2002). While the presence of a single female or minority did not affect the attention to issues in the majority opinion, panels composed of a majority of women or minorities produced opinions with significantly more points of law compared to panels with three Caucasian males. In the American judiciary, the deliberative nature of collegial courts is expected to identify and correct legal errors through appellate review and yield a higher-quality, reasoned judgment than the decision of a single (trial) judge. One federal appellate judge describes collegiality as "a process that helps to create the conditions for principled agreement, by allowing all points of view to be aired and considered" (Edwards 2003, 1645). During these deliberative processes, judges on a collegial court do not simply vote on an outcome; they must also agree on the holding of the court. If the processes are robust, one would expect to see some evidence of deliberations in the majority opinion. The legitimacy of the court's decision may depend on whether the written justification convinces the public that the decision was reached by the reasoned application of neutral legal principles (Carter 1979). As described by District of Columbia Circuit Judge Edwards (2003, 1662), "Coming to a multi-judge agreement is not a straight-The authors would like to thank Donald Songer, Stefanie Lindquist, Robert Christensen, and John Szmer as well as the editor and anonymous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of the article. Shawn Treier would also like to acknowledge the support of the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. Laura Moyer would like to acknowledge the support of Louisiana State University.

Objective. This article explores the impact of race, gender, age, and intersectionality on attorneys' perceptions of unfair treatment by other lawyers and on satisfaction with their legal careers. Method. Using an original survey of over 2,000 attorneys, ordered logit is utilized to analyze attorneys' perceptions of disparate treatment based on race, gender, and age and to test whether minority female attorneys face unique barriers within their professional relationships. Results. We find that minority women are more likely than others to perceive unfair treatment based on race, gender, and age. This also contributes to lower career satisfaction for attorneys who are women of color than for other groups. Conclusion. The findings have important implications for understanding attorney relationships and potential barriers for minority groups within a profession's culture. These obstacles not only impact attorneys, but could also influence attorney choice for citizens and the prospects for a representative judiciary.

This article investigates one causal mechanism that may explain why female judges on the federal appellate courts are more likely than men to side with plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases. To test whether personal experiences with inequality are related to empathetic responses to the claims of female plaintiffs, we focus on the first wave of female judges, who attended law school during a time of severe gender inequality. We find that female judges are more likely than their male colleagues to support plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases, but that this difference is seen only in judges who graduated law school between 1954 and 1975 and disappears when more recent law school cohorts of men and women judges are compared. These results suggest that the effect of gender as a trait is tied to the role of formative experiences with discrimination.You know, the young women today can't possibly . . . understand the pressures of being first . . . Nothing was good enough, and it took me an awful lot of years to realize how good many of the women really were in relationship to the men's talents. I mean, when I think of it, men that were hundreds of places below us in class were getting great jobs and there were no jobs for us.-Judge Ilana Rovner 1