Premium
Xenophilia or Xenophobia in U.S. Courts? Before and After 9/11
Author(s) -
Clermont Kevin M.,
Eisenberg Theodore
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
journal of empirical legal studies
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.529
H-Index - 24
eISSN - 1740-1461
pISSN - 1740-1453
DOI - 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00095.x
Subject(s) - xenophobia , risk aversion (psychology) , loss aversion , economics , demographic economics , selection bias , political science , positive economics , financial economics , law , racism , microeconomics , statistics , expected utility hypothesis , mathematics
This article revisits the controversy regarding how foreigners fare in U.S. courts. The available data, if taken in a sufficiently big sample from numerous case categories and a range of years, indicate that foreigners have fared better in the federal courts than their domestic counterparts have fared. Thus, the data offer no support for the existence of xenophobic bias in U.S. courts. Nor do they establish xenophilia, of course. What the data do show is that case selection drives the outcomes for foreigners. Foreigners' aversion to U.S. forums can elevate the foreigners' success rates, when measured as a percentage of judgments rendered. Yet that aversion waxes and wanes over the years, having generally declined in the last 20 years but with an uptick subsequent to 9/11. Accordingly, that aversion has caused the foreigners' “advantage” to follow the same track.