Affiliation:
1. University of California–Berkeley , USA
2. Stanford University , USA
Abstract
Abstract
While the volume of adjudication by federal agencies far outstrips the volume of cases decided by the federal judiciary, researchers have devoted relatively little attention to agency adjudication and political control thereof. We study three mechanisms of presidential control of immigration adjudication: capacity-building, selection, and precedential rulemaking. First, consistent with work on bureaucratic capacity, the Trump administration achieved its goal of increasing removals of noncitizens through an unprecedented increase in total hiring of immigration judges (IJs). Second, contrary to expectations from the literatures on judicial behavior and bureaucratic politics, we find little evidence of partisan effects in IJ selection. Third, we demonstrate the substantial power of what we call “precedential rulemaking”—the power by the Attorney General to select cases in which to issue binding precedent. These results illustrate the importance of incorporating mechanisms of supervisory and legal control into the study of administrative courts. (JEL K23, K37, D73).
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Subject
Law,Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Economics and Econometrics
Reference106 articles.
1. “A Political Response to Crisis in the Immigration Courts;Alexander;Georgetown Immigration Law Journal,2006
2. “Due Process and Mass Adjudication: Crisis and Reform;Ames;Stanford Law Review,2020
3. “Bureaucratic Investments in Expertise: Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Field Trial;Andersen;Journal of Politics,2016
4. “Against Administrative Judges;Barnett;UC Davis Law Review,2015
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献