This research investigates why courts sometimes gain independence and wield a check on other branches of government and why they sometimes fail to gain that capacity. Using the case of Argentina, the researcher identifies trends in judicial decision making and systematically tests the conditions under which politicians enhance or undermine judicial independence. This research uses interviews, analysis of judicial reform proposals, congressional debates, court appointments and removals and decisions handed down by two Argentine courts. This latter codes decisions handed down by the Argentine Supreme Court between 1980 and 1996 and the Buenos Aires Federal Appeals Court between 1983 and 1989. This research points to variations in levels of judicial independence over time and across issues, as well as variations in the relative power of the government and the political sensitivity of issues. The results of this study on Argentina have implications for other new democracies inside and outside of Latin America that suffer from weak and dependent judicial institutions.
