Does the Before Influence the After? Career Paths, Nominations, and Votes of the STF Justices

Abstract

Do previous trajectories of Federal Supreme Court justices influence their votes in court? Despite recent advances in research on judicial behavior, questions remain about the factors influencing the decisions of STF justices. Building a new typology of these justices' career paths, this article tests the hypothesis that professional characteristics influenced the judicial behavior of the justices judging the Ação Penal 470, a criminal case known as Mensalão. Our theory suggests that STF nominees bring to the court law interpretations and worldviews that were not only developed in their professional activities but also affected by the conditions of stability or political dependence that marked their career paths. Legal expertise means of professional rise, and types of interests justices were used to defending before joining the court shape the decision-making of the justices in the STF. Based on logistical regressions, we conclude that the votes to convict and acquit in the AP 470 trial are associated with these characteristics. Our findings carry implications for theories on judicial behavior and the process of appointing justices to the STF.