ABSTRACT
Implementation does not end once agencies determine how much policy change to enact in response to adverse decisions. Cases become precedents with implications for other policies that agencies might wish to adopt. Judges can have an enduring impact on organizational behavior when agencies are willing to apply the holdings of precedents to other relevant matters, but administrators often have incentives to limit the effects of precedents, especially when courts rule against them. Agencies may want to narrow precedents that impose excessive organizational costs or which make it harder for administrators to serve their constituents.
