Boyd, Christina L. 2016. “The Comparative Outputs of Magistrate Judges.” Nevada Law Journal 16:949-982.
Boyd, Christina L. 2015. “The Hierarchical Influence of Courts of Appeals on District Courts.” Journal of Legal Studies 44(1): 113-141.
Boyd, Christina L. 2015. “Litigant Status and Trial Court Appeal Mobilization.” Law & Policy 37(4): 294-323.
Boyd, Christina L. 2015. “Opinion Writing in the Federal District Courts.” Justice System Journal 36(3): 254-273.
Boyd, Christina L., Michael S. Lynch, and Anthony J. Madonna. 2015. “Nuclear Fallout: Investigating the Effect of Senate Procedural Reform on Judicial Nominations.” The Forum 13(4): 623-641.
Boyd, Christina L. 2015. “In Defense of Empirical Legal Studies.” Buffalo Law Review 63: 363-377.
Black, Ryan C., Christina L. Boyd, and Amanda C. Bryan. 2015. “Revisiting the Influence of Law Clerks on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Agenda-Setting Process.” Marquette Law Review 98(1): 75-109. Excerpted in Marquette Lawyer, Fall 2015; Research findings discussed in May 2015 “Academic high- light: The influence of the Supreme Court clerk” Supreme Court of the United States Blog (SCOTUS Blog).
Boyd, Christina L. 2013. “She’ll Settle It?” Journal of Law and Courts 1(2): 193-219.
Boyd, Christina L. and David A. Hoffman. 2013. “Litigating Toward Settlement.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization. 29(4): 898-929.
Boyd, Christina L. and Amanda Driscoll. 2013. “The Politics of Adjudicatory Oversight in Executive Branch Agencies.” American Politics Research. 41(4): 569-598.
Boyd, Christina L. and Jacqueline Sievert. 2013. “Unaccountable Justice? The Decision Making of Magistrate Judges in the Federal District Courts.” Justice System Journal 34(3): 249-273.
Black, Ryan C. and Christina L. Boyd. 2013. “Selecting the Select Few: The Discuss List and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Agenda-Setting Process.” Social Science Quarterly 94(4): 1124-1144.
Boyd, Christina L., David A. Hoffman, Zoran Obradovic, and Kosta Ristovski. 2013. “Build- ing a Taxonomy of Litigation: Clusters of Causes of Action in Federal Civil Complaints.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 10(1): 253-287.
Black, Ryan C. and Christina L. Boyd. 2012. “The Role of Law Clerks in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Agenda-Setting Process.” American Politics Research 40: 147-173.
Black, Ryan C. and Christina L. Boyd. 2012. “US Supreme Court Agenda Setting and the Role of Litigant Status.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization. 28(2): 286-312.
Boyd, Christina L., Lee Epstein, and Andrew D. Martin. 2010. “Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging.” American Journal of Political Science. 54(2): 389-411.Winner of the 2008 Midwest Political Science Association Pi Sigma Alpha Award ; Discussed in April 2009 Newsweek article (“Women: Truly the Fairer Sex”); May 2009 Washington Post op-ed (“When Women Rule, It Makes a Difference”); June 2009 New York Times article (“Debate on Whether Female Judges Decide Differently Arises Anew”); June 2009 Washington Post article (“Court Watch: Wise Women, Impacting the Courts?”); July 2009 National Journal Magazine article (“Do Gender And Race Mean Greater Empathy?”); August 2010 Associated Press article (“3 Women on High Court”); Interviewed about for “Who Should Be Next on the US Supreme Court?” on NPR affiliate program To The Point hosted by Warren Olney.
Boyd, Christina L. and David A. Hoffman. 2010. “Disputing Limited Liability.” Northwest- ern University Law Review. 104(3): 853-916.
Boyd, Christina L. and James F. Spriggs, II. 2009. “An Examination of Strategic Antici- pation of Appellate Court Preferences by Federal District Court Judges.” Washington University Journal of Law and Policy. 29: 37-80.
Kim, Pauline, Margo Schlanger, Christina L. Boyd, and Andrew D. Martin. 2009. “How Should We Study District Judge Decision-Making?” Washington University Journal of Law and Policy. 29: 83-112.
Epstein, Lee, Andrew D. Martin, and Christina L. Boyd. 2007. “On the Effective Com- munication of the Results of Empirical Studies, Part II.” Vanderbilt Law Review. 60: 798-846.
Boyd, Christina L. 2017. “Gatekeeping and Filtering in Trial Courts” in The Oxford Hand- book of U.S. Judicial Behavior. Lee Epstein and Stefanie A. Lindquist, eds. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Boyd, Christina L. and Ethan D. Boldt. 2017. “U.S. District Courts.” In Routledge Handbook Judicial Behavior. Robert M. Howard and Kirk A. Randazzo, eds. New York, NY: Routledge.
Boyd, Christina L. September 2016. “Diverse federal trial judges are more likely to rule in favor of minorities and women in sex and racial discrimination cases.” London School of Economics’ American Politics and Policy Blog.
Boldt, Ethan D. and Christina L. Boyd. 2016. “Federal Prosecutors as Strategic District Court Agenda Setters” Law & Courts. 26(2)(Summer): 7-9.
Boyd, Christina L. 2015. “Preface” in Empirical Theories About Courts by Keith O. Boyum and Lynn Mather (2nd edition, Quid Pro Books).
Boyd, Christina L. 2012. “Introduction: Symposium on Studying U.S. Trial Courts in Po- litical Science” Law & Courts. 22(2)(Summer): 4-7.
Boyd, Christina L. and Lee Epstein. May 3, 2009. “When Women Rule, It Makes a Dif- ference.” Washington Post. (Also published in Chapel Hill Herald, May 3, 2009; The China Post, May 4, 2009; Dallas Morning News, May 4, 2009; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,
May 5, 2009; Miami Herald, May 5, 2009; Virginian-Pilot, May 5, 2009; May 10, 2009; San Mateo County Times, May 10, 2009; Contra Costa Times, May 10, 2009; Alameda Times-Star, May 10, 2009; Oakland Tribute, May 10, 2009.)
Epstein, Lee, Christina L. Boyd, and Andrew D. Martin. 2008.“The Court(s) and the Elec- tion.” Miller-McCune Magazine. 1(5).
Boyd, Christina L. 2008. “Sedition Act of 1918” & “National Prayer Breakfast” In Encyclo- pedia of the First Amendment, ed. David L. Hudson, David A. Schultz, & John R. Vile. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
We are feminist law and society scholars who use the lens of gender to analyze judging. Although the highest appellate courts of most jurisdictions now have at least one woman member, and in some countries such as Italy and France, women dominate lower judicial offices, the battle for a fully gender-integrated bench is far from won.
The purpose of the new Gender and Judging blog and Judicial Diversity Scholar Network (JDSN) is to promote and disseminate scholarship, facilitate the translation of scholarship about the judiciary into practice, to build a community of scholars for data collection, information sharing, and collaboration, to support the production of cutting-edge research, and to promote the career success and advancement of scholars doing this research in the academy.