While studies show that public opinion and educational workshops promoted by nonprofits affect judicial behavior, it remains unclear whether and how social movements affect judges’ decision-making through disruptive actions. I develop a framework to explain the conditions under which and the mechanisms through which social movement mobilization affects the decision-making of judges, drawing on a mixed-methods study of anti-corruption protests in Brazil. I constructed an original dataset of decisions of corruption cases at the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (2003–2016). Results showed that actions that target judicial cases (case-focused protests)—but not protests that simply put the issue on the public agenda—are associated with higher chances that judges will decide in ways that are aligned with the movements’ demands. I supplemented this data with a qualitative analysis of appeals on two investigations of similar crimes and some of the same defendants but with different outcomes in appellate courts: Sandcastle (Castelo de Areia) and Car Wash (Lava Jato). Drawing on 110 interviews with prosecutors and judges and document analysis of criminal charges and judicial decisions, I show that case-focused protests affect judicial behavior through two mechanisms: by threatening the personal reputation of judges and the legitimacy of courts.

中文翻译：

---

司法行为的社会运动模式：来自巴西反腐败运动的证据

尽管研究表明非营利组织推动的舆论和教育研讨会会影响司法行为，但目前尚不清楚社会运动是否以及如何通过破坏性行为影响法官的决策。我利用对巴西反腐败抗议活动的混合方法研究，建立了一个框架来解释社会运动动员影响法官决策的条件和机制。我构建了巴西高等法院（2003-2016）腐败案件判决的原始数据集。结果表明，针对司法案件的行动（以案件为中心的抗议）——而不是简单地将问题提上公共议程的抗议——与法官以符合运动要求的方式做出决定的可能性更高有关。我通过对类似犯罪和一些相同被告但在上诉法院有不同结果的两项调查的上诉进行定性分析来补充这些数据：Sandcastle (Castelo de Areia) 和 Car Wash (Lava Jato)。根据对检察官和法官的 110 次采访以及对刑事指控和司法判决的文件分析，我表明以案件为中心的抗议通过两种机制影响司法行为：威胁法官的个人声誉和法院的合法性。