In this chapter, I examine popular Supreme Court rulings in lateral issues – those issues in which the Court must rely on non-court actors to implement its rulings. I find that when Court rulings faced little popular opposition, the justices' preferences had a strong causal effect on the behavior of state and private actors. These findings call into question the common assumption that popular Court decisions are insignificant because popular policies could always be enacted through the democratic process. On the contrary, my findings suggest that the manifestation of some popular policies may require prompting from the judiciary. Regardless, the case studies in this chapter demonstrate that the Court can wield significant power even when its decisions cannot be implemented by lower courts.

REAPPORTIONMENT

Although rarely receiving as much attention as rulings on abortion, free speech, or criminal rights, the reapportionment decisions inaugurated a revolutionary transformation of American government. Before the Court intervened in the process of drawing legislative districts, the representation of American citizens through democratic institutions at every level of government was extremely unbalanced. Legislative apportionment, which usually reflected historical trends more than the current population, drastically underrepresented those living in major metropolitan areas where population growth had not been met by a commensurate increase in representation.