Political Appointments, Careers, and Performance in the Public Sector: Evidence from U.S. Federal Judges

Abstract

This paper studies how political discretion in public appointments shapes the careers and performance of civil servants. The focus is on U.S. federal judges, who are nominated by the president based on recommendations from their home-state senators. Leveraging individual-level data on judges and senators from 1789 to 2019, we employ difference-in-differences and event-study designs to compare judges before and after their recommending senators leave office. Following the recommenders’ exit from Congress, judges’ performance declines. These negative effects manifest in both quantity, as measured by fewer judicial opinions authored and a larger backlog of civil cases, and quality, indicated by shorter opinions and fewer citations made and received. The results are consistent with an erosion of career prospects driving the effects: after their recommenders leave office, district court judges become less likely to be promoted to upper-level courts. The findings highlight how political discretion can motivate civil servants through career incentives, but also show that these incentives are closely tied to the tenure of their political sponsors.