{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027166882276843468, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.7894736842105265, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Status characteristics and their intersectionality: majority opinion assignment in state supreme courts

ABSTRACT We test whether justices’ traits – race, gender, age, previous judicial experience, education, and tenure – are associated with opinion assignment patterns as suggested by status characteristics theory. Female justices were more likely to be asked to write the majority opinion, particularly if the case raised a “women’s issue.” In complex cases, however, both female and African American justices were less likely to be selected to write the majority opinion. Extending intersectionality perspectives, advances in age were associated with a decreased likelihood in women and African American justices receiving the assignment, though at distinct age ranges.