Reassessing the freshman effect : freshman behavior on the United States Supreme Court, 1921-1991

Part of the conventional wisdom about the United States Supreme Court is the presumed existence of a "freshman effect," a distinct pattern of behavior thought to be associated with newly appointed justices. Three characteristics serve to define the freshman experience. One, freshman justices are thought to be less likely than their senior colleagues to vote with established ideological blocs. Two, freshman justices are though to receive a fewer number of majority opinion assignments. Three, freshman justices will suffer from assimilation difficulties. There are few scholarly studies of the freshman effect although efforts at understanding the phenomenon have been made periodically over several decades. The existing literature is characterized by small data sets, frequently limiting the analysis to only one justice and often employing quite different assumptions and methodological tools to explain freshman behavior. Adding to these problems is the fact that the literature tends to suffer from a lack of diversity regarding the freshman experience, as researchers have generally examined the ideological nature of the vote decision. Thus, much of what is known about the freshman effect is not generalizable beyond any single study. In order to test for a freshman effect on the United States Supreme Court, the behavior of all justices on the Court between 1921 and 1991 was examined. The data consist of all plenary decisions as published in the United States Reports. An examination of the findings reveals no freshman effect exists with regard to voting bloc behavior and the assignment of majority opinions. If a freshman effect exists, it is apparently related to assimilation difficulties as measured by the number of separate opinions written.