Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T06:36:30.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Criticism from Below

The Supreme Court’s Decision to Revisit Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Christopher P. McMillion  and
Kevin Vance
Christopher P. McMillion*
Affiliation:
Oklahoma Baptist University
Kevin Vance
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame
*
Contact the corresponding author at christopher.mcmillion@okbu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Supreme Court sometimes chooses to use its limited time to revisit earlier decisions. In doing so, the justices signal the importance of reasserting, correcting, or reconsidering their arguments. We find that the likelihood of the Supreme Court revisiting a case in a given year increases significantly as the number of circuit courts critical of that opinion increases. These results suggest that an acknowledgment of the important role of the circuit courts influences the decision to revisit cases. Even if the Court merely clarifies or reinforces earlier opinions, criticism in the circuits prompts the Court to take some action. Though the Supreme Court’s word is final, barring a constitutional amendment or legislative override in nonconstitutional cases, the mechanism of criticism in the circuits allows reconsideration of many issues already decided by the Court and sheds light on the importance of institutional structures to the maintenance of the rule of law.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , Spring 2017 , pp. 81 - 103
Copyright
© 2017 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Previous versions of this article were presented at the 2014 University of Texas at Austin Conference in Public Law and at the 2015 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. We thank Matthew E. K. Hall, H. W. Perry Jr., the editor, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and helpful suggestions.

References

Banks, Christopher P. 1991. “The Supreme Court and Precedent: An Analysis of Natural Courts and Reversal Trends.” Judicature 75 (5): 262–68.Google Scholar
Banks, Christopher P. 1999. “Reversals of Precedent and Judicial Policy-Making: How Judicial Conceptions of Stare Decisis in the U.S. Supreme Court Influence Social Change.” Akron Law Review 32 (2): 233–58.Google Scholar
Benesh, Sara C., and Malia Reddick. 2002. “Overruled: An Event History Analysis of Lower Court Reaction to Supreme Court Alteration of Precedent.” Journal of Politics 64 (2): 534–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, Stuart Minor, and Bruce A. Desmarais. 2012. “Standing the Test of Time: The Breadth of Majority Coalitions and the Fate of U.S. Supreme Court Precedents.” Journal of Legal Analysis 4 (2): 465–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharya, Mita, and Russell Smyth. 2001. “The Determinants of Judicial Prestige and Influence: Some Empirical Evidence from the High Court of Australia.” Journal of Legal Studies 30 (1): 223–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C., and Ryan J. Owens. 2009. “Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court: The Collision of Policy and Jurisprudence.” Journal of Politics 71 (3): 1062–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, Saul, and Harold J. Spaeth. 1995. Stare Indecisis: The Alteration of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court, 1946–1992. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright. 1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 82 (4): 1109–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Charles M., Jeffrey A. Segal, and Donald Songer. 2000. “Strategic Auditing in a Political Hierarchy: An Informational Model of the Supreme Court’s Certiorari Decisions.” American Political Science Review 94 (1): 101–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, David B., and Curtis S. Sigorino. 2010. “Back to the Future: Modeling Time Dependence in Binary Data.” Political Analysis 18 (3): 271–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, Matthew R., and William N. Eskridge Jr. 2014. “Congressional Overrides of Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions.” Texas Law Review 92 (6): 1317–1541.Google Scholar
Clark, Tom S., and Jonathan P. Kastellec. 2013. “The Supreme Court and Percolation in the Lower Courts: An Optimal Stopping Model.” Journal of Politics 75 (1): 150–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr., 2004. “Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation.” Law and Society Review 38 (4): 807–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C. 2008. “The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Influence of the Parties’ Briefs.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (3): 468–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C. 2009. “Uncertain Precedent Circuit Court Responses to Supreme Court Plurality Opinions.” American Politics Research 37 (1): 30–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danelski, David J. 1986. “Causes and Consequences of Conflict and Its Resolution in the Supreme Court.” In Judicial Conflict and Consensus: Behavioral Studies of American Appellate Courts, ed. Charles M. Lamb and Sheldon Goldman, 21–49. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Andrew D. Martin, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Chad Westerland. 2007. “The Judicial Common Space.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 23 (2): 303–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2000. “Measuring Issue Salience.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 66–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskridge, William N. Jr., 1991. “Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions.” Yale Law Journal 101 (2): 331–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Matthew E. K., and Joseph Daniel Ura. 2015. “Judicial Majoritarianism.” Journal of Politics 77 (3): 818–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansford, Thomas G., James F. Spriggs II, and Anthony A. Stenger. 2013. “The Information Dynamics of Vertical Stare Decisis.” Journal of Politics 75 (4): 894–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochschild, Adam S. 2000. “The Modern Problem of Supreme Court Plurality Decision: Interpretation in Historical Perspective.” Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 4:261–87.Google Scholar
Johnson, Charles A. 1987. “Law, Politics, and Judicial Decision Making: Lower Federal Court Uses of Supreme Court Decisions.” Law and Society Review 21 (2): 325–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastellec, Jonathan P. 2011. “Hierarchical and Collegial Politics on the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Journal of Politics 73 (2): 345–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, David E., and Robert J. Hume. 2003. “Fear of Reversal as an Explanation of Lower Court Compliance.” Law and Society Review 37 (3): 579–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, David E., and Darby Morrisroe. 1999. “The Prestige and Influence of Individual Judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Journal of Legal Studies 28 (2): 371–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, Stefanie A., and David E. Klein. 2006. “The Influence of Jurisprudential Considerations on Supreme Court Decisionmaking: A Study of Conflict Cases.” Law and Society Review 40 (1): 135–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., Kevin M. Quinn, and Lee Epstein. 2004. “The Median Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.” North Carolina Law Review 83 (5): 1275–1322.Google Scholar
McClurg, Scott D., and Scott A. Comparato. 2003. “Rebellious or Just Misunderstood? Assessing Measures of Lower Court Compliance with U.S. Supreme Court Precedent.” Unpublished manuscript, Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
McCurdy, Christopher C., and Ryan P. Thompson. 2011. “The Power of Posner: A Study of Prestige and Influence in the Federal Judiciary.” Idaho Law Review 48 (1): 49–66.Google Scholar
Owens, Ryan J. 2010. “The Separation of Powers and Supreme Court Agenda Setting.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (2): 412–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, H. W. Jr., 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidhauser, John R. 1962. “Stare Decisis, Dissent, and the Background of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” University of Toronto Law Review 14 (2): 194–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Jeffrey A. Segal, and Charles M. Cameron. 1994. “The Hierarchy of Justice: Testing a Principal-Agent Model of Supreme Court–Circuit Court Interactions.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (3): 673–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spriggs, James F., and Thomas G. Hansford. 2000. “Measuring Legal Change: The Reliability and Validity of Shepard’s Citations.” Political Research Quarterly 53 (2): 327–41.Google Scholar
Spriggs, James F. 2001. “Explaining the Overruling of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent.” Journal of Politics 63 (4): 1091–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spriggs, James F., and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 1997. “Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 50 (2): 365–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1959. “An Empirical Analysis of Selected Aspects of Lawmaking of the United States Supreme Court.” Journal of Public Law 8 (2): 414–36.Google Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul J., James F. Spriggs II, and Forrest Maltzman. 1998. “Marshalling the Court: Bargaining and Accommodation on the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (1): 294–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerland, Chad, Jeffrey A. Segal, Lee Epstein, Charles M. Cameron, and Scott Comparato. 2010. “Strategic Defiance and Compliance in the US Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (4): 891–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar