Following Precedent to Signal Ideological Neutrality

Abstract

I analyze a game-theoretic model of judicial decisionmaking in which judges are concerned both about promoting substantive policy outcomes and developing a reputation for being ideologically neutral. I argue that judges may be motivated to develop such a reputation either because they are concerned about promoting the institutional legitimacy of their court or because being perceived as too ideological may hamper a judge's promotion prospects. I characterize conditions under which such reputational concerns lead judges to follow precedent in order to signal their ideological neutrality.