What factors shape judicial decision-making? How does the law constrain judicial discretion across varying contexts? What biases influence judges, and how can these biases be mitigated? These critical questions form the foundation of my research into judicial decision-making. Through my studies, I seek to contribute meaningful insights to these ongoing inquiries.

For example, in one study, I mapped the various motivations influencing judicial discretion and demonstrated the inherent tendency for discretion to expand over time. This phenomenon—akin to a genie being easier to release from its bottle than to rein in—illustrates the structural and behavioral dynamics at play within judicial systems.

In another study, I empirically examined how sympathy for litigants unconsciously impacts judicial interpretations of the law. The findings reveal that instructing judges to adhere to a specific interpretive method focusing on the text's plain meaning significantly reduces this bias. This research highlights practical tools for debiasing judicial decisions.

A third study delved into the tension between law and justice, exploring how reason-giving affects judicial outcomes. The results showed that when judges provide written justifications for their decisions, they tend to adopt more formalistic approaches aligned with legal norms, as opposed to discretionary decisions informed by notions of equity. This research underscores how procedural requirements like reason-giving can steer decision-making​.

Looking ahead, my research will deepen its focus on the theoretical aspects of the law-justice dichotomy. It will also investigate empirically how different legal rules influence judges' inclinations to bend the law toward justice—or to remain steadfast in formalist interpretations.