Judicial influence and the importance of intersecting identities

Judges, like all of us, possess multiple intersecting identities. Drawing on social identity theory, we examine how gender, race, and partisanship jointly influence judicial citation practices. We hypothesize that in-group favoritism motivates judges to preferentially cite peers with whom they share salient identities, and that this effect intensifies as the number of shared identities increases. Using an extensive dataset of discretionary citations from search and seizure cases between 2000 and 2010, we find that sharing a single identity yields no significant effect. However, as the number of shared identities increases, so does the probability of citation. Judges who share race, gender, and partisanship exhibit a 25% higher probability of citation relative to those with no shared identity. These findings highlight the cumulative impact of intersecting identities on judicial influence and behavior, emphasizing that diversity is critical for the development of legal precedent and the law.