I examine the impact federal appellate courts have on state policy diffusion through the use of computational text analysis. Using a dyadic framework, I model the impact courts have on the decision to adopt a policy and, if adopted, how much text to borrow directly from another state's preexisting law. A court decision ruling a statute unconstitutional can generate up to a 28% relative reduction in the probability of adoption, and a ruling of constitutionality can both increase the probability of adoption by a similar amount and more than double the amount of borrowed text. These findings shed light on how states learn from one another.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rachael K. Hinkle (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: