Dissental study

 Law.com has Trump-Appointed Judges More Likely to Pen 'Dissentals' Than Colleagues, Study Finds -- “What we have seen in recent years are examples that make the news headlines of the destructive sort of separate opinion, one that's not actually meant to reason to the right answer, but is written for another reason: to audition or to make waves or to attract the attention of groupies,” said William & Mary Law School professor Allison Orr Larsen.

• Judges appointed by President Donald Trump are more likely to pen dissents to denials of en banc rehearing, or DDRs, than their Democratic- and other Republican-appointed colleagues, a new study says. [The Judicial Voice on the Courts of Appeals by Allison Orr Larsen & Neal E. Devins, William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Research Paper No. 09-501 111 Iowa L.Rev. (2025)]
• According to Larsen and Devins’ research, Republican appointees wrote 327 of the 487 total en banc denial dissents between 2014 and 2024 while their Democratic counterparts wrote only 160.
• Trump-appointed judges were 25% more likely to issue such dissents than other Republican appointees
• the three judges with the highest rates of such dissents written per year between 2014 and 2024 were Trump appointees based in the Ninth Circuit: Patrick Bumatay and Daniel Collins (each with 19 en banc denial dissents) and VanDyke (with 12). Bumatay and Collins joined the Ninth Circuit in 2019 and VanDyke the following year.

Back east.... Law.com has Are Philly Plaintiffs Firms Missing Out on Appellate Work? “There is room for more work, and whether that eventually translates into competition is a different question,” said Kline & Specter co-founder Shanin Specter.

And Former 3rd Circuit Judge Talks Apolitical Retirement, Plans, Threats Against Judiciary

What kind of advice do you find yourself often giving lawyers on how to persuade an appellate panel?
The biggest piece of advice is be thoroughly honest and forthcoming and engage in the dialogue with the court with integrity, so you get a reputation for being an advocate who will play it straight. Tell the truth about what the facts are and what the precedents are, even as you’re arguing for your client’s particular interest based on those facts and precedents. If a person does that, they’ll be effective. They may not win in any particular case—because the facts or law or both may be against them—but they’re going to be a professional that people respect and turn to.