Might the inversion of the trend between the district court level and the circuit level not be an artifact of survivorship bias? Presumably the questions that get to be decided on the circuit level are "closer" than those at the district court level?
Not an expert on the US legal system, but o3 tells me that a case can be affirmed, vacated and rendered, vacated and remanded or modified on the circuit level. Remands usually contain only some specific issues with the original case, hence are more likely to be "close". And even if the case is affirmed, the alternative is not only "vacate and render" but could also be "remand" or "modify" which is less decisive and hence again likely to be "closer"
So the observed greater polarization on the circuit court level might partially be an artifact of circuit judges facing narrower legal questions and less definitive alternatives which makes the dissent along ideological lines more likely and giving voice to that dissent less consequential (and hence less costly).
Might the inversion of the trend between the district court level and the circuit level not be an artifact of survivorship bias? Presumably the questions that get to be decided on the circuit level are "closer" than those at the district court level?
Not an expert on the US legal system, but o3 tells me that a case can be affirmed, vacated and rendered, vacated and remanded or modified on the circuit level. Remands usually contain only some specific issues with the original case, hence are more likely to be "close". And even if the case is affirmed, the alternative is not only "vacate and render" but could also be "remand" or "modify" which is less decisive and hence again likely to be "closer"
So the observed greater polarization on the circuit court level might partially be an artifact of circuit judges facing narrower legal questions and less definitive alternatives which makes the dissent along ideological lines more likely and giving voice to that dissent less consequential (and hence less costly).