Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-54cdcc668b-v2dhk Total loading time: 1.118 Render date: 2021-03-08T21:37:48.752Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

On Judicial Review in a Separation of Powers System*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2015

Abstract

The institution of judicial review is an important mechanism of holding the government legally accountable, nevertheless questions remain about its proper role in a separation of powers system. This article analyzes the effect of judicial review on the policy-making process from an expertise perspective. It shows that the exercise of non-expert judicial review can induce more informed policies and that non-expert courts have incentives to exercise judicial review in a manner consistent with institutional concerns for expertise. In addition to its importance as a mechanism of legal accountability, our analysis underscores another virtue of judicial review: legal review of governmental policy by non-expert courts can improve the amount of information available for policy making. The article contributes to a literature on the scope and legitimacy of judicial review and has broader implications for understanding the effect of institutional checks and balances on the quality of policy making.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

*

Tiberiu Dragu is Assistant Professor of Politics, New York University, 19 West 4th, New York, NY 10012 (tiberiu.dragu@nyu.edu); Oliver Board is an Attorney in private practice (ojboard@gmail.com). The authors thank Livio Di Lonardo, John Ferejohn, Xiaochen Fan, Mattias Polborn, Matthew Stephenson and seminar participants at New York University, Stanford University and University of Illinois for useful comments and suggestions. All errors are ours. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1017/psrm.2014.44

References

Allan, Trevor R.S. 2011. ‘Judicial Deference and Judicial Review: Legal Doctrine and Legal Theory’. Law Quarterly Review 127(1):96117.Google Scholar
Austen-Smith, David. 1993. ‘Information and Influence: Lobbying for Agendas and Votes’. American Journal of Political Science 37(3):799833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Scott, and Mezzetti, Claudio. 2012. ‘A Theory of Rational Jurisprudence’. Journal of Political Economy 120(3):513551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beim, Deborah, and Kastellec, Jonathan P.. 2014. ‘The Interplay of Ideological Diversity, Dissents, and Discretionary Review in the Judicial Hierarchy: Evidence from Death Penalty Cases’. Journal of Politics 76(4):10741088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Alexander. 1962. The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Breyer, Stephen. 1986. ‘Judicial Review of Questions of Law and Policy’. Administrative Law Review 38(4):368371.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan, and Stephenson, Matthew. 2002. ‘Informative Precedent and Intra-Judicial Communication’. American Political Science Review 96(4):755766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan, and Stephenson, Matthew. 2007. ‘Regulatory Quality Under Imperfect Oversight’. American Political Science Review 101(3):605620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Charles M. 2000. Veto Bargaining: Presidents and the Politics of Negative Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Charles M., and Kornhauser, Lewis A.. 2005. ‘Decision Rules in a Judicial Hierarchy’. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 161(2):264292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesney, Robert M. 2009. ‘National Security Fact Deference’. Virginia Law Review 95(6):13611435.Google Scholar
Clark, Tom S. 2006. ‘Judicial Decision Making During Wartime’. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 3(3):397419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Tom S. 2009. ‘The Separation of Powers, Court Curbing, and Judicial Legitimacy’. American Journal of Political Science 53(4):971989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, Paul, and Tomkins, Adam (eds) 2010. The Executive and Public Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, Vincent P., and Sobel, Joel. 1982. ‘Strategic Information Transmission’. Econometrica 50(6):14311451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, Frank B. 1999. ‘Shattering the Fragile Case for Judicial Review of Rulemaking’. Virginia Law Review 85(7):12431334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dessein, Wouter. 2002. ‘Authority and Communication in Organizations’. Review of Economic Studies 69(4):811838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewan, Torun, Galeotti, Andrea, Ghiglino, Christian, and Squintani, Francesco. 2014. Information Aggregation and Optimal Selection of the Executive. American Journal of Political Science, doi:10.1111/ajps.12121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewan, Torun, and Squintani, Francesco. 2013. The Role of Party Factions. Working paper, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Dragu, Tiberiu. 2011. ‘Is There a Trade-off between Security and Liberty? Executive Bias, Privacy Protections, and Terrorism Prevention’. American Political Science Review 105(1):6478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dragu, Tiberiu, and Polborn, Mattias. 2013. ‘The Administrative Foundation of the Rule of Law’. Journal of Politics 75(4):10381050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dragu, Tiberiu, and Polborn, Mattias. 2014. ‘The Rule of Law in the Fight Against Terrorism’. American Journal of Political Science 58(2):511525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dragu, Tiberiu, Fan, Xiaochen, and Kuklinski, James. 2014. ‘Designing Checks and Balances’. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 9(1):4586.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Ho, Daniel E., King, Gary, and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 2005. ‘The Supreme Court During Crisis: How War Affects Only Non-War Cases’. New York University Law Review 80(1):1116.Google Scholar
Eskridge, William, and Baer, Lauren. 2008. ‘The Continuum of Deference: Supreme Court Treatment of Agency Statutory Interpretations from Chevron to Hamdan’. Georgetown Law Journal 96(4):10831226.Google Scholar
Farrell, Joseph, and Gibbons, Robert. 1989. ‘Cheap Talk with Two Audiences’. American Economic Review 79(5):12141223.Google Scholar
Fox, Justin, and Vanberg, Georg. 2013. Narrow versus Broad Judicial Decisions. Journal of Theoretical Politics 26(3):355383.Google Scholar
Fox, Justin, and Stephenson, Matthew. 2011. ‘Judicial Review as a Response to Political Posturing’. American Political Science Review 105(2):397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankfurter, Felix. 1930. The Public and Its Government. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, Jody, and Vermule, Adrian. 2007. ‘Massachusetts v. EPA: From Politics to Expertise’. Supreme Court Review 1:51110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gailmard, Sean, and Patty, John W.. 2013. Learning While Governing: Expertise and Accountability in the Executive Branch. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gailmard, Sean, and Hammond, Thomas. 2011. ‘Intercameral Bargaining and Intracameral Organization in Legislatures’. Journal of Politics 73(2):535546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W., and Krehbiel, Keith. 1987. ‘Collective Decision-Making and Standing Committees: an Informational Rationale for Restrictive Amendment Procedures’. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3(2):145193.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W., and Krehbiel, Keith. 1989. ‘Asymmetric Information and Legislative Rules with a Heterogeneous Committee’. American Journal of Political Science 33(2):459490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom. 2007. ‘The Global Spread of Judicial Review’. In Keith E. Wittington, R. Daniel Keleman and Gregory A Caldeira (eds), Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics, 8198. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goltsman, Maria, and Pavlov, Gregory. 2011. ‘How to Talk to Multiple Audiences’. Games and Economic Behavior 72(1):100122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Gene M., and Helpman, Elhanan. 2001. Special Interest Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hadfield, Gillian K., and Weingast, Barry. 2013. ‘Law without the State: Legal Attributes and the Coordination of Decentralized Collective Punishment’. Journal of Law and Courts 1(1):132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, Henry Melvin, Sacks, Albert Martin, Eskridge, William N., and Frickey, Philip P.. 1994. The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law, Vol. 1410. William N. Eskridge and Philip P. Frickey (eds). Westbury, NY: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Huq, Aziz Z. 2012. ‘Structural Constitutionalism as Counterterrorism’. California Law Review 100(1):887951.Google Scholar
Kastellec, Jonathan P. 2011. ‘Hierarchical and Collegial Politics on the U.S. Courts of Appeals’. Journal of Politics 73(2):345361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavanagh, Aileen. 2009. Constitutional Review under the UK Human Rights Act. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kettl, Donald F. 2013. System under Stress: Homeland Security and American Politics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kramer, Larry D. 2004. The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krishna, Vijay, and Morgan, John. 2001. ‘Asymmetric Information and Legislative Rules: Some Amendments’. American Political Science Review 95(2):435452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A.. 1975. ‘The Independent Judiciary in an Interest Group Perspective’. Journal of Law and Economics 18(3):875901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landes, William M, and Posner, Richard A.. 1994. ‘The Economics of Anticipatory Adjudication’. Journal of Legal Studies 23(2):683719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, James. 1938. The Administrative Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R. 2007. ‘Constructing Legal Rules on Appellate Courts’. American Political Science Review 101(3):591604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nathan, Richard P. 1983. The Administrative Presidency. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Patty, John W., and Penn, Elizabeth Maggie. 2014. Sequential Decision-Making & Information Aggregation in Small Networks. Political Science Research & Methods 2(2):243271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearlstein, Deborah N. 2010. ‘After Deference: Formalizing the Judicial power for Foreign Relations Law’. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 159(3):783852.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard. 2006. Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raso, Connor N., and Eskridge, William N. Jr. 2010. ‘Chevron as a Canon, not a Precedent: An Empirical Test of what Motivates Judges in Agency Deference Cases’. Columbia Law Review 110(7):17271817.Google Scholar
Rogers, James R. 2001. ‘Information and Judicial Review: A Signaling Game of Legislative-Judicial Interaction’. American Journal of Political Science 45(1):8499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, James R., and Vanberg, Georg. 2002. ‘Judicial Advisory Opinions and Legislative Outcomes in Comparative Perspective’. American Journal of Political Science 46(2):379397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rourke, Francis E. 1976. Bureaucracy, Politics, and Public Policy. New York: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Scalia, Antonin. 1989. ‘Judicial Deference to Administrative Interpretations of Law’. Duke Law Journal 38(3):511521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiller, Reuel E. 2007. ‘The Era of Deference: Courts, Expertise, and the Emergence of New Deal Administrative Law’. Michigan Law Review 106(3):399441.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 1983. ‘Administrative Discretion: The Next Stage’. Yale Law Journal 92(8):14871522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solove, Daniel. 1999. ‘The Darkest Domain: Deference, Judicial Review, and the Bill of Rights’. Iowa Law Review 84(5):9411960.Google Scholar
Sossin, Lorne. 2010. ‘The Ambivalence of Executive Power in Canada’. In Paul Craig and Adam Tomkins (eds), Executive and Public Law, 5288. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Staton, Jeffrey. 2006. ‘Constitutional Review and the Selective Promotion of Case Results’. American Journal of Political Science 50(1):98112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staton, Jeffrey, and Vanberg, Georg. 2008. ‘The Value of Vagueness: Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions’. American Journal of Political Science 52(3):504519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, Matthew. 2006. ‘A Costly Signaling Theory of Hard Look Judicial Review’. Administrative Law Review 58(4):753813.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2005. ‘Administrative Law Goes to War’. Harvard Law Review 118(8):26632672.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2006. ‘Beyond Marbury: The Executive’s Power to Say What the Law is’. Yale Law Journal 115(9):25802610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushnet, Mark. 2005. ‘Emergencies and the Idea of Constitutionalism’. In M. Tushnet (ed.), The Constitution in Wartime: Beyond Alarmism and Complacency, 3954. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanberg, Georg. 2001. ‘Legislative-Judicial Relations: A Game-Theoretic Approach to Constitutional Review’. American Journal of Political Science 45(2):346361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 2006. ‘The Core Case against Judicial Review’. Yale Law Journal 115(6):13461406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max. 2009. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. 1991. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do And Why They Do It. United States: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Zegat, Amy B. 2009. Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI, and the Origins of 9/11. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 43
Total number of PDF views: 287 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 8th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

On Judicial Review in a Separation of Powers System*
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

On Judicial Review in a Separation of Powers System*
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

On Judicial Review in a Separation of Powers System*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *