2018/01/01 by Lee Epstein, Christopher M. Parker, Jeffrey A. Segal · 1 voice
Social Sciences · Computer Science · #Judicial and Constitutional Studies #Jury Decision Making Processes #Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
paper · doi:10.1086/697118
openalex publication_date 2018/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/06/10
Abstract For decades now, experiments have revealed that we humans tend to evaluate the views or activities of our own group and its members more favorably than those of outsiders. To assess convergence between experimental and observational results, we explore whether US Supreme Court justices fall prey to in-group bias in freedom-of-expression cases. A two-level hierarchical model of all votes cast between the 1953 and 2014 terms confirms that they do. Although liberal justices are (overall) more supportive of free-speech claims than conservative justices, the votes of both liberal and conservative justices tend to reflect their preferences toward the speech’s ideological grouping and not solely an underlying taste for (or against) greater protection for expression. These results suggest the importance of new research programs aimed at evaluating how other cognitive biases identified in experimental work may influence judicial behavior in actual court decisions.