A Workshop on Collegial Court Decision Making

合议庭如何制定法律？这个问题是司法政治学研究的核心。例如，如果不知道合议庭如何裁决案件和发布法律的规则，学者们就无法理解在三权分立制度下，司法机关如何与立法和行政部门互动，我们就无法理解上级法院和下级法院之间的等级关系，我们也无法理解法律如何以及为什么随着时间的推移而变化。该研讨会汇集了一小群积极参与合议庭决策研究的最重要的学者。讲习班的目标是帮助推动一个新兴的研究议程，重点是确定法律的规则的形成和执行如何有别于其他形式的决策。研讨会审查了这一调查路线所涉及的四组问题。首先，合议庭如何对案件作出裁决（包括处置和证明该处置合理的宣布规则），同时在这一过程中扮演什么角色？其次，会议研究了可用于测试这些更细致入微的司法决策理论的实证工具。第三，规则实际上是什么样子的（例如，为什么选择规则而不是标准）？第四，规则的放置和规则的形式对未来的法律适用有什么影响，无论是从未来的诉讼当事人还是下级法院的行为来看。例如，讲习班审查了法律的规则的形式和最高法院的决策过程如何影响下级法院的裁决。鉴于法律的意见是群体决策的产物，而这种意见作为法律的分量取决于其他大法官“签署”的意愿，下级法院应该如何回应多数意见和（潜在的）多数大法官表达的一致意见？

How do collegial courts make law? This question is central to the study of judicial politics. For example, without knowing how collegial courts decide cases and issue legal rules, scholars cannot understand how judiciaries interact with legislative and executive branches in separation of powers systems, we cannot understand hierarchical relationships between higher courts and lower courts, and we cannot understand how and why the law changes over time. This workshop brings together a small group of foremost scholars actively involved in the study of collegial court decision-making. The goal of the workshop is to help push forward a burgeoning research agenda focused on identifying how the formation and implementation of legal rules is distinct from other forms of policymaking. The workshop examines four sets of questions implicated in this line of inquiry. First, how do collegial courts rule on cases (both the disposition and the declared rules justifying that disposition), and what role do concurrences play in this process? Second, the conference examines the empirical tools available to test these more nuanced theories of judicial decision making. Third, what do rules actually look like (e.g. why choose rules versus standards)? Fourth, what are the consequences of the placement of rules and the form rules take for future application of the law both in terms of how future litigants and how lower courts will behave. For example, the workshop examines how the shape of a legal rule, and the process of decision-making on the Supreme Court, affects the decisions of lower courts. Given that legal opinions are the product of group decision-making, and the weight of that opinion as law depend on the willingness of other justices to "sign on," how should a lower court respond to a majority opinion and (potentially) concurring view expressed by other justices in the majority?