A Workshop on Collegial Court Decision Making

合议制法院如何制定法律？这个问题是研究司法政治的核心问题。例如，在不了解合议制法院如何裁决案件和发布法律规则的情况下，学者们无法理解司法机关如何在分权制度下与立法和行政部门互动，我们无法理解上级法院和下级法院之间的等级关系，我们无法理解法律如何以及为什么会随着时间的推移而变化。这次研讨会汇集了一小群积极参与研究合议庭决策的最重要的学者。讲习班的目标是帮助推动一项新兴的研究议程，重点是查明法律规则的形成和实施与其他形式的决策有何不同。研讨会审查了这一调查过程中涉及的四组问题。首先，合议庭如何对案件作出裁决(既包括处理，也包括为该处理辩护的已宣布规则)，同时在这一过程中发挥什么作用？其次，会议审查了可用来检验这些更微妙的司法决策理论的经验工具。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，就未来的诉讼当事人和下级法院的行为而言，规则的放置和规则对未来法律适用采取的形式会产生什么后果。例如，讲习班审查了法律规则的形成以及最高法院的决策过程如何影响下级法院的裁决。鉴于法律意见是群体决策的产物，而这种意见作为法律的重要性取决于其他法官是否愿意“签署”，下级法院应该如何回应多数人的意见和(可能)多数人中其他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?