Skip to main content

Paul Collins

University of Massachusetts Amherst, Political Science & Legal Studies, Faculty Member

Followers

15

Following

1

Co-author

1

Public Views

Paul M. Collins, Jr. is a Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Collins is the author of four books and dozens of journal articles on American law and politics, and his research has been funded by the Dirksen Congressional Center and the National Science Foundation. His research and commentary have appeared in a host of popular media outlets, including CNN, the New York Times, National Public Radio, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. His research focuses on understanding bias and inequality in the legal system, the selection and work of judges, and social movement litigation.

less

InterestsView All (9)

Uploads

Papers by Paul Collins

Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and Constitutional Change

Before Supreme Court nominees are allowed to take their place on the High Court, they must face a... more Before Supreme Court nominees are allowed to take their place on the High Court, they must face a moment of democratic reckoning by appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Despite the potential this holds for public input into the direction of legal change, the hearings are routinely derided as nothing but empty rituals and political grandstanding. In this book, Paul M. Collins and Lori A. Ringhand present a contrarian view that uses both empirical data and stories culled from more than seventy years of transcripts to demonstrate that the hearings are a democratic forum for the discussion and ratification of constitutional change. As such, they are one of the ways in which 'We the People' take ownership of the Constitution by examining the core constitutional values of those permitted to interpret it on our behalf.

International Conflicts and Decision Making on the Federal District Courts

Social Science Research Network, 2006

and the anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback on this and related research and to Chris Nichol... more

format_quoteNo support found for wars or crises influencing federal district-court decisions, suggesting judges maintain consistent decision-making regardless of conflicts.format_quote

The ‘Ginsburg Rule’ Is Not an Excuse to Avoid Answering the Senate’s Questions

Legal Scholarship Spotlight: The Evolution of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

The Small Group Context: Designated District Court Judges in the United States Courts of Appeals

Social Science Research Network, 2008

Decision making in the United States Courts of Appeals occurs primarily in three-judge panels wit... more Decision making in the United States Courts of Appeals occurs primarily in three-judge panels with rotating membership. A substantial proportion of court of appeals cases is decided by panels that include a judge who is not a regular court of appeals jurist but is, instead, a district court judge serving temporarily on the court of appeals bench. Taken together, these two traits mean that court of appeals decision making is often a function of small groups with temporary members. In this paper, we set out to examine whether designated district court judges behave differently than their court of appeals colleagues with whom they render decisions. And, in doing so, we suggest a profitable direction for theory building vis-à-vis judicial behavior. Our analysis of data contained in the United States Courts of Appeals Database indicates that the votes of judges on three-judge panels are influenced by the preferences of their fellow panelists and that variance in the ideological direction of votes cast is not systematically related to status as a designated district court judge, with such judges manifesting greater variance in their ideological decision making.

Why not limit Neil Gorsuch — and all Supreme Court justices — to 18-year terms?

format_quotePolitical selection of justices ensures Supreme Court remains in touch with public opinion over time, addressing democratic accountability.format_quote

Legal entrepreneurship and the evolution of multidimensional advocacy in social movements: the case of marriage equality

Law & society review, Mar 1, 2024

The emergence and dissemination of new legal ideas can play an important role in sparking change ... more The emergence and dissemination of new legal ideas can play an important role in sparking change in the way activists in marginalized communities understand their rights and pursue their objectives. How and why do the legal beliefs of such communities evolve? We argue that the vigorous advocacy of new legal ideas by entrepreneurs and the harnessing of specialized media to help disseminate those ideas are important mechanisms in this evolution. We use the rise of marriage equality as a central legal priority in the mainstream American LGBTQ+ rights movement as a case study to illustrate this phenomenon. Using a mixed-methods analysis of Evan Wolfson's legal advocacy and an examination of The Advocate, we investigate how Wolfson developed and disseminated legal ideas about same-sex marriage. We show how this advocacy eventually dominated discussion of the issue among elite LGBTQ+ legal actors and the nation's largest LGBTQ+ publication. However, Wolfson's advocacy tended to emphasize LGBTQ+ integration into "mainstream" American culture and prioritized the interests and values of relatively privileged subgroups within the LGBTQ+ community. Our research informs our understanding of the interplay between legal advocacy and media reporting in the development of LGBTQ+ rights claims and the strategies adopted to achieve them.

Gender, Race, and Interruptions at Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

The American political science review, Mar 14, 2024

n this research letter, we examine whether gender and racial bias affect interruption rates at on... more n this research letter, we examine whether gender and racial bias affect interruption rates at one of the most visible events in American politics: US Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Using original data from 1939 to 2022, we find that male and white participants are more likely to interrupt women and person of color speakers, respectively, relative to male and white speakers. This finding holds for both senators and nominees as interrupters. Our results provide evidence that biased interruptive behavior occurs in even the most public and salient of political settings and that it can be mitigated (or intensified) by shared (or opposite) partisanship among speaking pairs. We also find interruption inequalities are not isolated to women as the interrupted, revealing that people of color in political and legal settings are subject to heightened rates of interruptions as well.

The Effect of Judicial Decisions on Issue Salience and Legal Consciousness in Media Serving the LGBTQ+ Community

The American political science review, Feb 26, 2024

cholars have long questioned whether and how courts influence society. We contribute to this deba... more cholars have long questioned whether and how courts influence society. We contribute to this debate by investigating the ability of judicial decisions to shape issue attention and affect toward courts in media serving the LGBTQ+ community. To do so, we compiled an original database of LGBTQ+ magazine coverage of court cases over an extended period covering major decisions, including Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health (2003), and Lofton v. Secretary of Department of Children & Family Services (2004). We argue these cases influence the volume and tone of LGBTQ+ media coverage. Combining computational social science techniques with qualitative analysis, we find increased attention to same-sex marriage after the decisions in Lawrence, Goodridge, and Lofton, and the coalescence of discussions of courts around same-sex marriage after Lawrence. We also show how LGBTQ+ media informed readers about the political and legal implications of struggles over marriage equality.

Interruptions at Supreme Court confirmation hearings have been rising since the 1980s

format_quoteThe rate of interruptions at Supreme Court hearings has steadily increased, with notable spikes since Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg's nominations.format_quote

The Top Five Supreme Court Nomination Myths

What Two Legal Scholars Learned From Studying 70 Years of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

Joe Biden called them a "kabuki dance." Elena Kagan called them a "vapid and hollow charade." So ... more Joe Biden called them a "kabuki dance." Elena Kagan called them a "vapid and hollow charade." So Supreme Court confirmation hearings are worthless, right? Wrong. Our research moves beyond the conventional wisdom espoused by Biden, Kagan and others, and presents a strong case for an alternative view of the hearings. Examining every Elena Kagan takes the hot seat for what she called a "vapid and hollow charade" in 2010. REUTERS/Jason Reed

Neil Gorsuch and the Ginsburg Rules

Chicago-Kent} Law Review, Aug 9, 2018

format_quoteGorsuch's responsiveness ratio was 2.5% compared to Ginsburg's 15.4%, indicating significant differences in how nominees responded at hearings.format_quote

Let's Talk: Judicial Decisions at Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

Judicature, Jul 1, 2012

As part of the checks and balances that are a hallmark of the American political system, presiden... more As part of the checks and balances that are a hallmark of the American political system, presidential nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court must be confirmed by the Senate. To facilitate its role of providing the president The authors extend their gratitude to Bryan Calvin, Nathan Goodrich, Nick jones, Alexander King, and jonathan Milby for their excellent research assistance and to Bethany Blackstone and Lisa Solowiej for their comments. Collins and Ringhand thank the Dirksen Congressional Center for a research grant that partially funded the data used in this project.

The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Content

Social Science Research Network, 2013

We address fundamental questions about the ability of interest groups to shape public policy by e... more We address fundamental questions about the ability of interest groups to shape public policy by examining the influence of amicus curiae briefs on U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion content. We argue that the justices will incorporate language from amicus briefs into their opinions based on the extent to which the amicus briefs contribute to their ability to make effective law and policy. Using plagiarism detection software and other forms of computer assisted content analysis, we find that the justices adopt language from amicus briefs based primarily on the quality of the brief 's argument, the level of repetition in the brief, the ideological position advocated in the brief, and the identity of the amicus. These results add fresh insight into how interest groups influence the development of federal law by the Supreme Court. A previous version of this research was presented at the 2013 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. We are grateful to participants on that panel, especially Lee Epstein, Tim Johnson, Richard Posner, Amy Steigerwalt, and Art Ward, for their thoughtful comments on this project. We also extend our thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their very useful feedback.

Interest group influence on the supreme court: theoretical and methodological considerations

77th Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science …, 2006

The Small Group Context: Designated District Court Judges in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2011

Decision making in the U.S. courts of appeals occurs primarily in three-judge panels. A substanti... more Decision making in the U.S. courts of appeals occurs primarily in three-judge panels. A substantial number of cases are decided by panels that include a judge who is a district court judge serving temporarily on the appeals bench. This means that court of appeals decision making is often a function of small groups with temporary members. Here, we examine whether designated district court judges behave differently than their court of appeals colleagues when they cast their votes in cases they are deciding as members of three-judge appellate panels. In doing so, we suggest a profitable direction for theory building vis-à-vis judicial decision making. Our analysis of the ideological direction of the votes judges cast, as well as the variance in those votes, indicates that judges on three-judge panels are influenced by the preferences of their fellow panelists, and that designated district court judges, while no more variable than their court of appeals colleagues, are more susceptible to the influence of their peers than are regular members of the courts of appeals in a nontrivial number of cases.

Strategy , Certainty , and the Decision to Dissent on the U . S . Courts of Appeals

While there has been a substantial amount of research on the strategic behavior of political acto... more While there has been a substantial amount of research on the strategic behavior of political actors, the literature is rife with conflicting findings. We contribute to this debate by examining whether U.S. court of appeals judges dissent for the purpose of inviting en banc and/or Supreme Court review. We dissect aspects of modeling strategic behavior, particularly relating to problems of multicollinearity. We explore these issues by examining the dissenting behavior of court of appeals judges from 1970-2002. Our findings indicate that court of appeals judges strategically dissent, but this behavior is seldom captured by traditional quantitative approaches to modeling judicial behavior. Though our focus is on court of appeals judges, we are confident our conclusions can inform studies of strategic behavior in a variety of political contexts. PAPER PREPARED FOR DELIVERY AT THE 69 ANNUAL MEETING OF THE MIDWEST POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, MARCH 31-APRIL 3, 2011 ___...

format_quoteDissent increases the likelihood of Supreme Court or en banc review, indicating judges may dissent to signal for review.format_quote

Senators Treat Female Supreme Court Nominees Differently Here S the Evidence

The Institutionalization of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

Law & Social Inquiry, 2015

This article uses an original database of confirmation hearing dialogue to examine how the Senate... more This article uses an original database of confirmation hearing dialogue to examine how the Senate Judiciary Committee's role in Supreme Court confirmations has changed over time, with particular attention paid to the 1939–2010 era. During this period, several notable developments took place, including a rise in the number of hearing comments, increased attention to nominees’ views of judicial decisions, an expansion of the scope of issues addressed, and the equalization of questioning between majority and minority party senators. We demonstrate that these changes were shaped by both endogenous and exogenous factors to promote the legitimization of the Judiciary Committee's role in the confirmation process and to foster the instrumental goals of senators. This research contributes to our understanding of the development of political institutions, interbranch interactions, and how institutional change affects the behavior of legal and political actors.

format_quoteStatistical analysis reveals significant changes in confirmation hearings over time, with models showing robust results after controlling for other influences.format_quote