This piece is the first of a series of pieces investigating the relationship between litigant choice and the legal issue that the Supreme Court agrees to decide when it grants certiorari. We found that for the most part, petitioners decide the question presented; in three-fourths of cases, the Court does not change the question from the petition. We also found some interesting results on ideology: the Court is more likely to change a QP when presented by a conservative petitioner, as the Court grows more conservative. 

Jurisprudential regimes theory argues that changes in the law have an effect on later decisions. While the evidence for JRT is contested at the Supreme Court level, I find significant evidence that changing the legal rules governing a claim changes the strategic calculus of litigants.

This is a piece about metaphors in law. The basic thrust of this article - that metaphors are tools that can be misused like any other tool of legal analysis - remains solid. I don't necessarily stand behind the myriad of other details; I've had an opportunity to think more deeply about jurisprudence since then, and I'm not convinced that judging is just statutory interpretation without an enacted text.

My first publication as a grad student. I find that campaign contributions go up as communities become more racially diverse, suggesting that people become politically activated by a belief in racial threat.

Baby's first publication. My very first article, looking at the role of repeat players in Supreme Court lawyering.