Dissent in a major federal court dropped by two-thirds after just one judge left, proving one person can be the entire engine of a court's debate.
SSRN · March 17, 2026 · 6410018
The Takeaway
While we usually think of judicial disagreement as a clash of many different legal philosophies, this study shows that the culture of debate in a court can depend entirely on one individual. After Judge Pauline Newman was suspended, dissent rates plummeted far more than her individual votes would explain, showing she was the primary catalyst for disagreement across the entire court.
From the abstract
<p>An empirical analysis of nearly 5,000 precedential Federal Circuit opinions issued between 2004 and early 2026 reveals that the court's dissent rate has collapsed following Judge Pauline Newman's suspension. From 2005 through 2022, the dissent rate averaged approximately 19%; by 2024–2025, it fell to roughly 6%. The decline exceeds what Newman's individual dissents would explain—the rate dropped to roughly half the historical baseline of even non-Newman panels, suggesting her departure transf