Appellate Cases and SUTVA Violations 

 Around a month ago, I blogged about the dangers of using appellate case outcomes as datapoints.  The basic idea is that most models or inference structures assume some kind of independence among the units, perhaps independence given covariates (in which case the residuals are assumed to be i.i.d.), or perhaps the "Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption" in the causal inference context.  When applied to appellate cases in the United States legal system, these analyses assume away precedent.  The instincts I developed as a practicing litigator tell me not to believe a study that assumes away precedent. 

 One solution to this problem previously proposed in the causal inference literature is to match "treated" and "control" appellate cases that are very close in time to each other (whatever "treated" and "control" are here).  After a conversation I had with Mike Kellermann a week or so ago, I think this cure may be worse than the disease.  The idea behind comparing cases very close in time to one another is that the general state of the law (in part defined by precedent) for the two cases will be similar.  That's right, but recent developments in the law are more on the minds of judges. 

 Suppose Case A got treatment, and Case B got control.  If the matching algorithm has worked, Case A and Case B will be similar in all ways except the treatment.  If Case A and Case B are also close in time to one another, how plausible is it the judges who decide both will decide them without regard to each other?