This paper provides the first causal estimates of how presidential judicial appointments shape outcomes in federal district court civil rights cases. Using an original dataset of about 70,000 cases and nearly 200 judges, the analysis examines whether assignment to a Democratic- or Republican-appointed judge changes the likelihood of settlement, dismissal, or other outcomes.

📊 What the data and identification look at

• Original dataset spanning roughly 70,000 civil rights cases heard by nearly 200 federal district court judges.
• Additional sample of civil rights appeals from the Ninth Circuit used to check whether effects persist at the appellate level.
• Identification leverages variation in case assignment to estimate causal effects of a judge's appointing president (Democratic vs. Republican) on case outcomes.

🔍 Key findings

• Republican-appointed judges cause fewer settlements and more dismissals, producing outcomes that favor defendants by about 5 percentage points.
• A similarly sized pro-defendant effect appears in the Ninth Circuit appeals sample, calling into question the assumption that politics matters only at higher judicial levels.
• The effect in district courts has grown over time: for cases filed during the Obama presidency, Republican appointees produced pro-defendant outcomes in 7.4 percentage points more cases than Democratic appointees.

🔑 Why this matters

• Results show that presidential appointments shape not only high-profile appellate rulings but also the everyday functioning of district courts, affecting resolution patterns for civil rights litigation.
• District courts emerge as an important, and previously underexamined, arena for judicial politics and for understanding how appointment politics translate into concrete case-level outcomes.