Abstract The judiciary is subject to constraint from Congress through numerous mechanisms. In particular, Congress can limit judicial discretion through the content of the statutes it passes. After the September 11 attacks, Congress sought to constrain judicial behavior through the REAL ID Act (2005). In response to growing fear of fraud in the asylum process, Congress instructed federal judges reviewing administrative decisions to consider minor inconsistencies in an applicant’s testimony as undermining his or her credibility, a crucial component of a refugee’s claim. Despite Congress’s clear abrogation of the prior rule in these cases, some federal appellate courts have refused to let go of their pre–REAL ID standard. In this article, I investigate the factors explaining when judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals will defy the express language of a congressional statute in exercising their power of review in asylum cases. The results indicate that congressional directives are not, alone, enough to compel judges to adopt a legal standard. I find that circuit-level legal and policy factors are the strongest predictors of whether a federal court of appeals judge will try to limit the standard designated by Congress. At the same time, evidence suggests that judges consider the risk of a congressional override. My findings not only add to our understanding of legislative–judicial interactions, but also contribute to the growing movement to understand the politics of legal doctrine.

中文翻译：

---

钢笔或木槌的力量？在上诉法院确定庇护标准

摘要 司法部门通过多种机制受到国会的约束。特别是，国会可以通过其通过的法规的内容来限制司法自由裁量权。9 月 11 日袭击事件发生后，国会试图通过《真实身份法案》（2005 年）限制司法行为。为了应对越来越多的人担心庇护程序中的欺诈行为，国会指示联邦法官在审查行政决定时将申请人证词中的轻微不一致视为损害其可信度，而这是难民申请的关键组成部分。尽管国会明确废除了这些案件中的先前规则，但一些联邦上诉法院拒绝放弃他们的 pre-REAL ID 标准。在这篇文章中，我调查了解释美国法官时的因素 上诉法院在行使对庇护案件的审查权时，将无视​​国会法规的明文规定。结果表明，仅靠国会指令并不足以迫使法官采用法律标准。我发现巡回层面的法律和政策因素是联邦上诉法院法官是否会试图限制国会指定标准的最强有力的预测因素。与此同时，有证据表明法官会考虑国会推翻的风险。我的发现不仅增加了我们对立法-司法互动的理解，而且有助于理解法律学说政治的运动。足以迫使法官采用法律标准。我发现巡回层面的法律和政策因素是联邦上诉法院法官是否会试图限制国会指定标准的最强有力的预测因素。与此同时，有证据表明法官会考虑国会推翻的风险。我的发现不仅增加了我们对立法-司法互动的理解，而且有助于理解法律学说政治的运动。足以迫使法官采用法律标准。我发现巡回层面的法律和政策因素是联邦上诉法院法官是否会试图限制国会指定标准的最强有力的预测因素。与此同时，有证据表明法官会考虑国会推翻的风险。我的发现不仅增加了我们对立法-司法互动的理解，而且有助于理解法律学说政治的运动。