In a provocative academic examination, professors Stephen Choi and Mitu Gulati argue that judges appointed under President Donald Trump are outperforming those appointed by President Joe Biden. This conclusion, published in a preliminary draft article, is based on what some may see as a controversial methodology focusing largely on the quantity of judicial output rather than its quality.

The study, following up on earlier comparisons of Trump's appointees with those of former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, employs metrics like the number of written opinions to gauge judicial productivity. However, the choice to equate sheer volume with superior performance is contentious. Critics argue that writing more opinions—particularly dissents or concurrences that do not influence case outcomes—should not necessarily be equated with better judicial performance. It might, instead, indicate a propensity for grandstanding rather than genuine legal deliberation.

Moreover, the study’s method of measuring a judge's influence—based on the frequency with which other circuits cite their opinions—also raises eyebrows. This metric may favor judges who tackle divisive or high-profile issues, regardless of the broader legal consensus or the quality of the reasoning in their rulings.

The authors note that opinions on hot-button topics, like gun rights, tend to garner more citations, which could skew perceptions of a judge's influence. This suggests that the study's findings might reflect judicial activism or a particular ideological bent rather than an objective measure of judicial quality.

In terms of judicial independence, the paper employs complex formulas that some might find opaque or overly convoluted. The end result purports to show which judges are willing to dissent from their colleagues, including those appointed by presidents of the same party. Yet, this too is a double-edged sword. Independence can signal a healthy willingness to challenge orthodoxy and injustice but can also veer into mere contrariness or attention-seeking.

Ultimately, the study opens the door to a necessary discussion about how we measure judicial performance. Critics of the study argue that it conflates productivity with verbosity and controversial decision-making with influence. They caution against adopting a purely quantitative assessment of judicial work, which might encourage judges to game the system by producing a high volume of opinions or seeking out divisive cases to enhance their metrics.

In essence, while the study claims to provide an objective analysis of judicial performance, it may, in fact, offer a lens that is as subjective and debatable as the judgments it seeks to assess. As the legal community digests its findings, the conversation it sparks will likely do more to illuminate the values and biases of its interpreters than settle any definitive scores about the relative merits of Trump versus Biden judges.