Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T17:25:49.998Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Influence of Jurisprudential Considerations on Supreme Court Decisionmaking: A Study of Conflict Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Stefanie A. Lindquist  and
David E. Klein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this study, we assess the impact of attitudinal and jurisprudential factors on the Supreme Court's resolution of intercircuit conflicts. In doing so, we depart from earlier efforts to assess the impact of legal factors that conceptualize law as an external constraint. Instead, we view jurisprudential considerations in terms of the justices' efforts to adopt the most legally persuasive position in light of accepted methods of legal reasoning. Our analyses reveal that the justices are (1) more likely to follow the reasoning process adopted by the majority of circuits involved in the conflict, (2) less likely to adopt the conflict position marred by contrary dissents and concurrences in the circuit court opinions, and (3) more likely to adopt the conflict position endorsed by prestigious circuit court judges. Our findings suggest that jurisprudential considerations, as well as attitudinal concerns, affect the justices' decisionmaking processes in a substantial minority of cases.

Type
Articles of General Interest
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 135 - 162
Copyright
© 2006 Law and Society Association.

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

The authors are grateful to Harold Spaeth, Herbert Kritzer, and the anonymous reviewers for their careful and valuable feedback.

References

References

Aldrich, John H., & Nelson, Forrest D. (1984) Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (1997) The Puzzle of Judicial Behavior. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharya, Mita, & Smyth, Russell (2001) “The Determinants of Judicial Prestige and Influence: Some Empirical Evidence from the High Court of Australia,” 30 J. of Legal Studies 223–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, Steven J. (1992) Judging in Good Faith. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory (1985) “The Transmission of Legal Precedent: A Study of State Supreme Courts,” 79 American Political Science Rev. 178–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, Barry (1998) Rethinking the New Deal Court: The Structure of a Constitutional Revolution. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, Harry T. (1991) “The Judicial Function and the Elusive Goal of Principled Decisionmaking,” Wisconsin Law Rev. 837–65.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Kobylka, Joseph F. (1992) The Supreme Court and Legal Change: Abortion and the Death Penalty. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley (1989) Doing What Comes Naturally: Change, Rhetoric and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies. Durham: Duke Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard (1993) The Constitution Besieged: The Rise and Demise of Lochner Era Police Power Jurisprudence. Durham: Duke Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard (2001) “What's Law Got to Do with It? Judicial Behavioralists Test the ‘Legal Model’ of Judicial Decision Making,” 26 Law and Social Inquiry 465–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenawalt, Kent (1992) Law and Objectivity. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Gujarati, Damodar N. (1995) Basic Econometrics, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Handberg, Roger, & Hill, Harold F. Jr. (1980) “Court Curbing, Court Reversals, and Judicial Review,” 14 Law & Society Rev. 309–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia, et al. (2003) “Separate Opinion Writing on the United States Courts of Appeals,” 31 American Politics Rev. 215–50.Google Scholar
Howard, J. Woodford (1981) Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Robert, & Segal, Jeffrey (2002) “An Original Look at Originalism,” 36 Law & Society Rev. 113–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, David E. (2002) Making Law in the United States Courts of Appeals. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, David, & Morrisroe, Darby (1999) “The Prestige and Influence of Individual Judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” 28 J. of Legal Studies 371–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landes, William M., & Posner, Richard A. (1976) “Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis,” 19 J. of Law and Economics 249–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., & Quinn, Kevin M. (2002) “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999,” 10 Political Analysis 134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. (1995) “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success,” 57 J. of Politics 187–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. (1998) “Explaining Executive Success in the U.S. Supreme Court,” 51 Political Research Q. 505–26.Google Scholar
Newman, Jon O. (1984) “Between Legal Realism and Neutral Principles: The Legitimacy of Institutional Values,” 72 California Law Rev. 200–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, H. W. Jr. (1991) Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., & McCarty, Nolan M. (1995) “Veto Power and Legislation: An Empirical Analysis of Executive and Legislative Bargaining from 1961–1986,” 11 J. of Law, Economics, and Organization 282–312.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. (1995) What Do Judges Maximize? The Same Things Everyone Else Does in Overcoming Law. Cambridge: Harvard Univ Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Mark J., & Kritzer, Herbert M. (2002) “Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making,” 96 American Political Science Rev. 305–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarat, Austin (1977) “Judging in Trial Courts: An Exploratory Study,” 39 J. of Politics 368–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey, & Spaeth, Harold (2002) The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Sidney A., & Levy, Richard E. (1995) “Judicial Incentives and Indeterminacy in Substantive Review of Administrative Decisions,” 44 Duke Law J. 1051–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, Reginald S., et al. (1992) “Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court,” 86 American Political Science Rev. 464–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Rogers M. (1994) “Comments on The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model,” 4 Law and Courts 8–9.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold, & Segal, Jeffrey (1999) Majority Rule or Minority Will. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold, & Teger, Stuart (1982) “Activism and Restraint: A Cloak for the Justices' Policy Preferences,” in Halpern, S. C. & Lamb, C. M., eds. Supreme Court Activism and Restraint. Lexington, MA: Lexington Press.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, et al. (1998) CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Version 1.2. Harvard University, September 16. http://gking.harvard.edu/.Google Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul (1997) “The Life of the Law: Politics and Legal Change,” 59 J. of Politics 778–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cases Cited

Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 (1995).Google Scholar