Tag: policy implementors

Mixed Messages and Bounded Rationality: The Perverse Consequences of REAL ID for Immigration Policy

by Maureen Stobb, Banks Miller, & Joshua Kennedy

The President and Congress have renewed efforts in the past year to reshape immigration policy. Yet, if history can teach us anything, it is that outcomes in this area tend not to match intent. Our research looks at a clear example of this mismatch, the REAL ID Act, a law aimed at tightening refugee admissions by taking control away from liberal judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Despite its intent, it resulted in more people getting asylum. In our research we ask, what explains this policy gap?

We contend that part of the answer lies in the REAL ID Act’s ambivalent language, a common characteristic of policy concerning undocumented immigrants. The law gave the street-level bureaucrats who decide asylum cases —immigration judges (IJs)— more discretion to deny bogus asylum claims. They no longer had to point to an inconsistency undermining a key aspect of the persecution claim to find the applicant not credible. They could deny based on inconsistencies such as birthdays and wedding dates that have no connection to the asylum claim. At the same time, the law required IJs to consider all the circumstances, potentially reincorporating some of the former rule.

What did IJs do in this situation? They are supposed to follow the precedent in the circuit with jurisdiction over where they sit, but the President controls their hiring and firing, and Congress writes the law and determines their budget. We argue that IJs, behaving in a bounded rationality framework, relied on their professional training as lawyers as a shortcut and were considerably more deferential to the circuit courts who read every opinion they write.

We find just that. As the figure below shows, the adoption of the REAL ID Act’s credibility standard enabled significantly closer ideological control by the courts. Before REAL ID, there was very little relationship between the presumed aggregate preferences of the appellate courts on asylum cases and IJ decision making in that circuit. But after the REAL ID Act is implemented by the circuit through the adoption of its standard in precedent, as the percentage of the circuit that is Democratic increases so too does the likelihood of an IJ granting asylum. The impact went from 3 to 52 percentage points.

Image Description

Figure 1: REAL ID & the Circuit Courts

We saw an increase in influence for Congress and the President, but it was not nearly as large. We also show this is not just a result of the uniqueness of the first Trump administration.

The findings suggest that any attempts to restrict asylum access through immigration courts during Trump’s second term would require precisely written policies. If the administration and a Republican-controlled Congress pursue such restrictions, vague or ambiguous language could backfire. In cases of unclear policy, IJs will turn to federal courts for guidance—potentially leading to interpretations that run counter to the administration’s goals.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Stobb, Maureen, Banks Miller, and Joshua Kennedy. 2023. Mixed messages & bounded rationality: The perverse consequences of real ID for immigration policy. Policy Studies Journal 51: 667–684. https://doi-org.echo.louisville.edu/10.1111/psj.12486

About the Authors

Maureen Stobb is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Georgia Southern University. Her research focuses on the expansion of judicial power relative to the legislature and the executive, particularly in the policy areas of immigration and citizenship. Her research has been published in various outlets including The Journal of Law & Courts, and Justice System Journal.

Banks Miller is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Texas at Dallas. His research focuses on judicial decision making, intellectual property policy, and immigration policy. Recent work has been published in the Journal of Law & Courts and American Politics Research.


Joshua B. Kennedy is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Georgia Southern University. His research of late focuses on political control of the administrative state, and he has also published in the area of unilateral presidential power. His research has appeared in American Politics Research, Research & Politics, and Presidential Studies Quarterly, among other outlets.

, , , , , ,

What lessons do professionals learn about government from implementing policy?

by Patricia Strach

A professional on a recent Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) webinar that we participated in noted that stigma doesn’t just affect people who use drugs (the clients), it also affects the professionals providing services to them. We weren’t surprised. In our interviews, focus groups, and participant observation of roughly 200 professionals, we heard the same frustration, which was backed up with examples of lower salaries, less respect, and few opportunities to use professional discretion.

While researchers have shown that clients or even community members learn lessons about how government works from their direct or indirect interactions, we don’t know what effect policies have on another invested group: professional implementors. Yet professionals in substance-use disorder services—including general healthcare, drug treatment, and harm reduction (such as syringe exchange) programs—are very aware that they have a different experience from professionals working with other clients.

Substance-use disorder services, then, offer a window into how policies designed for marginalized and negatively constructed populations affect the advantaged, policy professionals administering them with broader implications for the true effects of public policy.

In our research, we find that policy implementors learn by proxy: they witness a government that does not care about people who use drugs; they experience a government that is not committed to providing positive care services to their clients and does not value the professionals who work with them; and in witnessing and experiencing together, they learn that the disadvantaged status of people who use drugs affects the benefits and burdens on the professionals who administer them too.

One treatment provider summed up the effect of extensive and proscriptive rules that punish clients at the same time they remove clinical discretion from well-qualified providers as having “less to do …with whether or not they believe the patient. It’s really how much they respect the opinion or the information provided by the clinician. So I think that stigma follows not only the clients and patients that we see, but I think they don’t always believe us.”

These lessons shape implementors’ views of government. They believe government does not care and has chosen not to take meaningful action in ways that are at odds with what their advantaged status—as counselors, nurses, doctors, managers, and executives in health systems—might suggest. They do not see government as supportive, or politics as winnable. Instead, their status as professionals allows them to compare their experience to other professionals’ and their clients’ experience with other clients’, and they recognize the unfairness in how government treats clients and professionals.

Our article, “Learning by Proxy: How Burdensome Policies Shape Policy Implementors Views of Government,” suggests that policy affects more than clients or community members. It spills over to the professionals who implement them, shaping their experience and perspective of government too. Our research offers lessons for scholars of drug policy, policy feedback, administrative burdens, and social construction of target populations.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Strach, Patricia, Elizabeth Pérez-Chiqués and Katie Zuber. 2024. “ Learning by Proxy: How Burdensome Policies Shape Policy Implementors’ Views of Government.” Policy Studies Journal 00(0): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12554.

About the Author

Patricia Strach, PhD is Professor, Departments of Political Science and Public Administration & Policy, University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY) and a fellow at the Rockefeller Institute of Government, SUNY. With Katie Zuber and Elizabeth Pérez-Chiqués, she examines the opioid epidemic in local communities, engaging people on the frontlines including judges, lawyers, sheriffs, service providers, elected officials, community activists, and people who use drugs and their families. She is the author most recently of The Politics of Trash: How Governments Used Corruption to Clean Cities, 1890–1929 (Cornell 2023) as well as articles published in the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Policy Studies Journal, and the Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law. She has presented her findings to federal and state policymakers and has appeared on panels across New York State. Strach received the Outstanding Public Engagement in Health Policy Award from the American Political Science Association’s Section on Health Politics and Policy in 2020 and was a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in Health Policy Research at Harvard (2008-2010).

, , ,