Judicial process and the exercise of judicial judgment may be affected by the politics of federal judicial appointments; yet, understanding the impact of the appointment process on the lower federal district courts remains rudimentary and incommensurate with its importance. Dr. Rowland's research addresses fundamental questions about the links between politics, judgment, and the evolution of American jurisprudence. In an effort which integrates diverse theories from economics, social psychology, and political science, Dr. Rowland's investigation includes the measurement of appointment effects on both the published and unpublished opinions of judges in the areas of civil rights, civil liberties, labor, regulation and contract cases decided between 1981 and 1985. Not only is the effect of the appointing President to be examined, but also the "home state effect," as measured by the politics of those home state forces which generated the appointment. In addition, attorneys involved in settlement and litigation in two jurisdictions, Kansas City, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri, are interviewed to determine the extent to which their decisions to settle or litigate were based on the judge's perceived predilections and political leanings. While there is much conjecture about the interrelationship between political and legal processes, this study should yield systematic knowledge of how the two mesh to influence judicial behavior.
