Most of the empirical work on separate opinion writing by lower federal court judges examines the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Given the Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction, it is argued that dissenting opinions operate as a cue signaling that a case is worthy of review. Concurrences, on the other hand, allow judges to join dispositional majorities while still expressing differences in legal reasoning from the majority. Likely in an effort to minimize dissent, the behavior of circuit court judges is found to be less influenced by ideology when potential dissenters serve with them. Despite the specter of Supreme Court review, these works generally find that the motivation to write separately is based largely in ideologically differences among panelists and less so on preferences of the Supreme Court. What, however, does separate opinion writing look like when the Court's jurisdiction is mandatory, as it is over three‐judge district court panels? Among other uses required by law, these district court panels are used to adjudicate cases arising under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These panels also differ from the traditional judicial structure by placing district court judges, who traditionally decide cases individually, in a multimember setting with another district court judge and a circuit court judge. Examining separate opinion writing on these panels, we find that ideological distance from the majority opinion writer is still an important factor. This, however, is conditioned by the preferences of the Supreme Court, which exert a much stronger influence over behavior than they do in the traditional appellate court setting.

中文翻译：

---

强制性上诉管辖权下的独立意见撰写：三法官区法院小组和《表决权法》

由下级联邦法院法官撰写的独立意见书的大部分实证研究都是对美国上诉法院进行的。鉴于最高法院的酌处权，有人认为异议只是暗示该案值得复审的线索。另一方面，通过同意，法官可以在多数情况下表现出法律推理上的差异，同时也可以使多数人参与其中。可能是为了最大程度地减少异议，发现巡回法院法官的行为在潜在异议者陪同下受到的意识形态影响较小。尽管有最高法院审查的幽灵，但这些作品总体上发现，分开写书的动机主要是基于小组成员在意识形态上的差异，而不是基于最高法院的偏好。但是，什么 当法院的管辖权是强制性的时，就像在三个法官的地方法院小组中一样，单独的意见书看起来像吗？除法律要求的其他用途外，这些地区法院专门委员会用于裁定根据1965年《投票权法》产生的案件。这些委员会与传统的司法结构不同，地方法院法官通常由多名成员组成，由地区法院法官单独裁决案件与另一位地方法院法官和巡回法院法官。通过在这些面板上检查独立的意见书，我们发现与多数意见书作者的意识形态距离仍然是一个重要因素。但是，这取决于最高法院的偏好，与传统的上诉法院相比，最高法院对行为的影响更大。