About

Emerson H. Tiller joined the Northwestern faculty in 2003 as a Professor of Law with a courtesy appointment at the Kellogg School of Management as Professor of Business Law. Prior to his tenure at Northwestern, he was a professor at the University of Texas, Graduate School of Business, where he also directed the Center for Business, Technology and Law. His research has primarily focused on empirical and theoretical analyses of political forces in regulatory and judicial decision-making, as well as the legal and strategic management of intellectual property. Professor Tiller has published numerous papers in law and economic journals and law reviews, and has received research grants and fellowships from organizations such as the National Academies of Science, the John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, and the Bradley Foundation. His academic expertise includes contracts, intellectual property, administrative law, law, economics and social science, and positive political theory.

Research topics

• Sociology
• Political Science
• Law
• Law and economics

Selected publications

• Authorial control of the Supreme Court: Chief Justice Roberts and the Obamacare surprise

  International Review of Law and Economics · 2021

  Senior authorCorresponding
  • Political Science
  • Sociology
  • Law
  PublisherDOI

• Authorial Control of the Supreme Court

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2017-01-01 · 1 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• The “Law” and Economics of Judicial Decision-Making

  Oxford University Press eBooks · 2017-05-10 · 22 citations

  book1st authorCorresponding

  Over the last three decades, the economics of judicial behaviour has revealed itself most prominently in the field now known as Law and Positive Political Theory (Law and PPT). Instead of the traditional focus of ‘law and economics’ on the normative efficiency of legal rules, Law and PPT identifies the role of competition among legal and political institutions for policy outcomes, with these outcomes usually taking the form of legislative enactments, executive action, judicial opinions, or administrative agency pronouncements (regulations). This article illustrates the ‘law’ features of Law and PPT, while keeping the economics of judicial decision-making — especially the efficiency-driven, game-theoretic, utility maximization features — at the forefront of the analysis. It begins by summarizing basic elements of Law and PPT as relevant to judicial decision-making. It then discusses context-specific applications of Law and PPT where the craft of law is revealed as strategy.

  PublisherDOI

• The Law and Positive Political Theory of Panel Effects

  The Journal of Legal Studies · 2015-01-01 · 18 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  This article presents a robust theory of panel effects by integrating the key “law” components of judicial decision making—doctrines and decision instruments—with the judicial hierarchy (principal-agent) components that dominate much of the panel effects literature. The refined model illustrates how doctrines, instruments, and the level of decision transparency between lower and higher courts condition the impact of panel effects on judicial decision making. The implications of recent empirical findings of panel effects are reevaluated through this more refined perspective.

  PublisherDOI

• Introduction to "25 Years of Law and Positive Political Theory: Past, Present and the Future"

  The Journal of Law Economics and Organization · 2015-11-01 · 1 citations

  articleSenior author

  Journal Article Introduction to “25 Years of Law and Positive Political Theory: Past, Present and the Future” Get access Daniel B. Rodriguez, Daniel B. Rodriguez Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Emerson H. Tiller Emerson H. Tiller Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Volume 31, Issue 4, November 2015, Pages 752–755, https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewv024 Published: 11 November 2015

  PublisherDOI

• The Execution of Judicial Discourse: A Positive Political Theory and Empirical Analysis of Strategic Word Choice in District Court Opinions

  Deep Blue (University of Michigan) · 2012-04-09

  articleOpen access

  Supported by numerous empirical studies on judicial hierarchies and panel effects, Positive Political Theory (PPT) suggests that judges engage in strategic use of opinion content—to further the policy outcomes preferred by the decision-making court. In this study, we employ linguistic theory to study the strategic use of opinion content at a granular level—investigating whether the specific word choices judges make in their opinions is consistent with the competitive institutional story of PPT regarding judicial hierarchies. In particular, we examine the judges’ pragmatic use of the linguistic operations known as “hedging”—language serving to enlarge the truth set for a particular proposition, rendering it less definite and therefore less assailable—and “intensifying”—language restricting the possible truth-value of a proposition and making a statement more susceptible to falsification. Our principal hypothesis is that district court judges not ideologically aligned with the majority of the overseeing circuit judges use more hedging language in their legal reasoning in order to insulate these rulings from reversal. We test the theory empirically by analyzing constitutional criminal procedure, racial and sexual discrimination, and environmental opinions in the federal district courts from 1998 to 2001. Our results demonstrate a statistically significant increase in the use of certain types of language as the ideological distance between a district court judge and the overseeing circuit court judges increases.

  Publisher

• Panel Effects in Administrative Law: A Study of Rules, Standards, and Judicial Whistleblowing

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2012-01-01

  articleOpen access
  PublisherDOI

• Patent Litigation and the Internet

  OpenBU (Boston University) · 2012-01-01 · 7 citations

  articleOpen access

  Patent infringement litigation has not only increased dramatically in frequency over the past few decades,1 but also has also seen striking growth in both stakes and cost.2 Although a relatively rich literature has added much to our understanding of the nature, causes, and consequences of patent litigation during the past two decades,3 many interesting questions remain inadequately addressed. The nuances of and trends in patent litigation in different technology fields and industries, for example, are still understudied.4 Litigation of patents on new technologies has likewise received a dearth of attention. Here we seek to help begin filling these gaps by empirically analyzing the phenomenon in a very particular context: the litigation of Internet patents. In particular, we study litigation of patents on Internet business processes issued during the first few years in which such patents were granted, and determine whether it differs in meaningful ways from litigation of patents in other fields.

  PublisherOA PDF

• A Positive Theory And Empirical Analysis Of Strategic Word Choice In District Court Opinions

  The Journal of Legal Analysis · 2012-09-04 · 59 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Supported by numerous empirical studies on judicial hierarchies and panel effects, Positive Political Theory (PPT) suggests that judges engage in strategic use of opinion content-to further the policy outcomes preferred by the decision-making court. In this study, we employ linguistic theory to study the strategic use of opinion content at a granular level-investigating whether the specific word choices judges make in their opinions is consistent with the competitive institutional story of PPT regarding judicial hierarchies. In particular, we examine the judges' pragmatic use of the linguistic operations known as "hedging"-language serving to enlarge the truth set for a particular proposition, rendering it less definite and therefore less assailable-and "intensifying"-language restricting the possible truth-value of a proposition and making a statement more susceptible to falsification. Our principal hypothesis is that district court judges not ideologically aligned with the majority of the overseeing circuit judges use more hedging language in their legal reasoning in order to insulate these rulings from reversal. We test the theory empirically by analyzing constitutional criminal procedure, racial and sexual discrimination, and environmental opinions in the federal district courts from 1998 to 2001. Our results demonstrate a statistically significant increase in the use of certain types of language as the ideological distance between a district court judge and the overseeing circuit court judges increases.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Patent Litigation and the Internet

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2012-01-01 · 9 citations

  articleOpen access

  Patent infringement litigation has not only increased dramatically in frequency over the past few decades, but also has also seen striking growth in both stakes and cost. Although a relatively rich literature has added much to our understanding of the nature, causes, and consequences of patent litigation during the past two decades, many interesting questions remain inadequately addressed. The nuances of and trends in patent litigation in different technology fields and industries, for example, are still understudied. Litigation of patents on new technologies has likewise received a dearth of attention. Here we seek to help begin filling these gaps by empirically analyzing the phenomenon in a very particular context: the litigation of Internet patents. In particular, we study litigation of patents on Internet business processes issued during the first few years in which such patents were granted, and determine whether it differs in meaningful ways from litigation of patents in other fields.

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• John M. de Figueiredo

  Duke University

  21 shared

• Frank B. Cross

  9 shared

• John de Figueiredo

  9 shared

• Pablo T. Spiller

  University of California, Berkeley

  6 shared

• Max M. Schanzenbach

  6 shared

• John R. Allison

  The University of Texas at Austin

  5 shared

• J. L. Smith

  University of Alabama

  3 shared

• Tonja Jacobi

  3 shared

Awards & honors

• Research grants and fellowships from the National Academies…
• Research grants and fellowships from the John M. Olin Progra…
• Research grants and fellowships from the Bradley Foundation