Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction
- PART I EXPANDING JUDICIAL ROLES IN NEW OR RESTORED DEMOCRACIES
- Part II EXPANDING JUDICIAL ROLES IN ESTABLISHED DEMOCRACIES
- 6 Courts Enforcing Political Accountability
- 7 The Dutch Hoge Raad
- 8 A Consequential Court
- 9 Judicial Constitution Making in a Divided Society
- 10 Public Interest Litigation and the Transformation of the Supreme Court of India
- 11 The Judicial Dynamics of the French and European Fundamental Rights Revolution
- 12 Constitutional Courts as Bulwarks of Secularism
- PART III FOUR “PROVOCATIONS”
- Conclusion Of Judicial Ships and Winds of Change
- Index
- References
8 - A Consequential Court
The U.S. Supreme Court in the Twentieth Century
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 April 2013
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction
- PART I EXPANDING JUDICIAL ROLES IN NEW OR RESTORED DEMOCRACIES
- Part II EXPANDING JUDICIAL ROLES IN ESTABLISHED DEMOCRACIES
- 6 Courts Enforcing Political Accountability
- 7 The Dutch Hoge Raad
- 8 A Consequential Court
- 9 Judicial Constitution Making in a Divided Society
- 10 Public Interest Litigation and the Transformation of the Supreme Court of India
- 11 The Judicial Dynamics of the French and European Fundamental Rights Revolution
- 12 Constitutional Courts as Bulwarks of Secularism
- PART III FOUR “PROVOCATIONS”
- Conclusion Of Judicial Ships and Winds of Change
- Index
- References
Summary
To say that a constitutional court has played a significant role in governance of a nation implies that the court's decisions are consequential – that they make a difference, have an independent effect on politics, public policy, and power relationships, or on social or economic life, the treatment of minorities, criminal suspects, political or religious dissidents. This essay, accordingly, discusses the roles played by the U.S. Supreme Court in the twentieth century, asking to what extent and in what ways the Court was a consequential political actor.
Lawyers and legal scholars take it for granted that the U.S. Supreme Court, which has exercised the power of constitutional judicial review for more than 200 years, has been a politically consequential court. To many political scientists, however, the Court's actual influence is an unsettled empirical and theoretical question. Scholars often referred to as regime theorists argue that constitutional courts only rarely, if ever, have a powerful independent effect on government and society (Dahl, 1957; Rosenberg, 1991; Peretti, 1999; Pickerell & Clayton, 2004; Whittington, 2008). Regime theorists see high courts not primarily as politically powerful principals but as agents whose decisions in politically significant cases generally reflect the preferences of the political leaders who appointed them. Even if judges are personally inclined to make bold, politically unpopular rulings, it is argued, prudence usually impels them to act strategically, avoiding decisions that important political leaders are likely not only to denounce but to resist, reverse, or retaliate against (Epstein, Knight, & Shvetsova, 2001). In this view, therefore, when judicial decisions do have broad social or political consequences, it is because powerful political leaders or parties approve of (or at least accept) those decisions and – just as importantly – are willing to implement them. In regime theory, the judges may appear to be the engineer driving the legal or constitutional train, but political leaders have built the track and selected the engineers, thus deciding what direction they want the train to go.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Consequential CourtsJudicial Roles in Global Perspective, pp. 199 - 232Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2013
References
(1980) “White Flight and the Future of School Desegregation,” in & , eds., School Desegregation: Past, Present and Future. New York: Plenum Books, pp. 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. (1978) White Flight, Demographic Transition and the Future of School Integration. Santa Monica. Santa Barbara:RAND Institute Paper Series.Google Scholar
(1985) Loading The Dice: A Five Country Study of Vinyl Chloride Regulation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
& (1998) The Shape of the River: Long Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1993) The Failure of the Criminal Procedure Revolution. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006) “The Story of Wickard v Filburn,” in , ed., Constitutional Law Stories. New York: Foundation Press, pp. 69–118.Google Scholar
(1992) The Politics of Justice: The Attorney General and the Making of Legal Policy. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
, , & (2005) “Social Movements and Social-Change Litigation: Synergy in the Montgomery Bus Protest,” Law & Soc. Inquiry 30(4): 663–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
et al. (1975) Trends in School Integration, 1968–1973. U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare.Google Scholar
(1975) Justice Accused: Antislavery & The Judicial Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Regulation and Public Interests: The Possibility of Good Regulatory Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1998). Rethinking the New Deal Court: The Structure of a Constitutional Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1957) “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker,” Journal of Public Law 6: 279.Google Scholar
& (1971) The School Prayer Decisions: From Court Policy to Local Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2009) Making Rights Real: Activists, Bureaucrats, and the Creation of the Legalistic State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. (1998) The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
& (2001) “The Role of Constitutional Courts in the Establishment and Maintenance of Democratic Systems of Government,” Law & Society Rev. 35: 117–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2007) “The Black Basis of Constitutional Development,” in , ed., Earl Warren and the Warren Court. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
& (1998) Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2004) “The Story of Roe v. Wade,” in , ed., Constitutional Law Stories. New York, NY: Foundation Press, pp. 359–406.Google Scholar
(2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1994) “Hopelessly Hollow History: Revisionist Devaluing of Brown v. Board of Education,” Virginia Law Review 80: 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2008) “School Prayer,” in , , & , eds., Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 62–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1993) “The Nonmajoritarian Difficulty: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary,” Studies in Amer. Pol. Dev. 7: XX.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2011) “Support Structures and Constitutional Change: Teles, Southworth, and the Conservative Legal Movement,” Law & Social Inquiry 35: 516–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2007) “Globalization and Legal Change: The ‘Americanization’ of European Law?” Regulation & Governance 1: 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. (2001) Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. (1983) “What if Abe Fortas Had Been More Discreet?” in , ed., What If? Explorations in Social Science Fiction. Albany, GA: Lewis Publishing.
(2007) “Party, Policy, or Duty: Why Does the Supreme Court Invalidate Federal Statutes?” American Political Science Review 101: 321–38.Google Scholar
(2007) Unfinished Business: Racial Equality in American History. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2004) From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Police Interrogation and American Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006) “Motor Vehicle Mfgrs. Assn v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance,” in , ed., Administrative Law Stories. New York: Foundation Press, pp. 334–397.Google Scholar
, , & (1989) “Structure and Process; Politics and Policy: Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies,” Virginia Law Review 75: 431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000) “Constitutional Vision and Supreme Court Decisions: Roosevelt on Race,” Studies in American Political Development 14: 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2010) “The Great Debate over the Civil Rights State,” paper prepared for delivery at the Western Political Science Association Meeting, San Francisco, April 1, 2010.Google Scholar
(2008) “Desegregation,” in , , & , eds., Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 18–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Between Law & Politics: The Solicitor General and the Structuring of Race, Gender, and Reproductive Rights Litigation. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) “Double Jeopardy: Race, Crime and Getting a Job,” Wisconsin L Rev 2005(1): 617–662.Google Scholar
, , & , eds. (2008) Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2004) “The Rehnquist Court and the Political Dynamics of Federalism,” Perspectives on Politics 2: 233–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ed. (1983) What If? Explorations in Social Science Fiction. Albany, GA: Lewis Publishing.Google Scholar
(2000) The Warren Court and American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
, Jr. (1987) “The Exclusionary Rule and Deterrence: An Empirical Study of Chicago Narcotics Officers,” U. Chicago Law Rev. 54: 1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1994) “Brown is Dead! Long Live Brown!: The Endless Attempt to Canonize a Case,” Virginia Law Review 80:161.Google Scholar
. (1991) The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change?Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
& (1996) “The Effectiveness of School Desegregation Plans, 1968–1991,” American Politics Research 24: 267–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1988) Who Guards the Guardians? Judicial Control of Administration. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
(2009) Law's Allure: How Law Shapes, Constrains, Saves, and Kills Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. (2003) “Globalization and the Rule of Law: A Machine that Runs of Itself?” International Journal of Constitutional Law 1: 427–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Governing Through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1975) “The Reformation of American Administrative Law,” Harvard Law Review 88: 1669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006) “Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v Volpe – of Politics and Law, Young Lawyers and the Highway Goliath,” in , ed., Administrative Law Stories. New York: Foundation Press, pp. 258–332.Google Scholar
(2008) Sweet Land of Liberty: The Forgotten Struggle for Civil Rights in the North. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
(1999) One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
(1987) Whose Votes Count? Affirmative Action and Minority Voting Rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2006)“The Supreme Court and the National Political Order: Collaboration and Confrontation,” in & , eds, The Supreme Court and American Political Development, Kansas U Press, pp. 117–138.Google Scholar
(1993) Taming the System: The Control of Discretion in Criminal Justice, 1950–1990. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History (Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
(2005) Harsh Justice: Criminal Punishment and the Widening Divide between America and Europe. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Patriots and Cosmopolitans: Hidden Histories of American Law. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adarand Constructors v Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)
Abingdon School District v Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1964)
Aguilar v Texas. 378 U.S. 108 (1964)
Argersinger v Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972)
Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 794 (1969)
Browder v. Gale, 142 F. Supp. 707 (1956), affirmed, Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956)
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Brown v. Board of Education (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294 (1955)
California v. Robinson, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)
Chimel v California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v Volpe
City of Richmond v. Croson, 488 U.S. 469 (1989)
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)
DeFunis v Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974)
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)
Engel v Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 (1963)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Gratz v Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)
Griggs v Duke Power Co. 401 U.S. 424 (1971)
Grutter v. Bollinge, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1428 (1967)
Keyes v Denver School District 413 U.S. 189 (1973)
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Mapp v Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Miller v California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
Milliken v Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)
Monroe v. Pape 365 U.S. 167 (1961)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs Ass'n of the US v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins, Co, 463 U.S. 29 (1983)
Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934)
N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, 301 U.S. 1 (1937)
Palko v. Connecticut 302 U.S. 319 (1937)
Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. __ (2007)
Plessy v Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Pointer v Texas (1965) 380 U.S. 400 (1965)
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932)
Regents of the University of California v Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
Scenic Hudson Preservation Council et al v Federal Power Commission, 354 F. 2d. 608 (2nd Cir., 1965)
Schechter Poultry Corp v U.S., 295 U.S. 495 (1935)
The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 469 (1944)
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis 301 U.S. 548 (1937)
Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381 (1940)
Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenberg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S. 1 (1971)
Trop v Dulles 356 U.S. 86 (1958)
United Steelworkers of America v. Weber 443 U.S. 193 (1979)
U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1885)
U.S. v Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1882)
U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
Vieth v Jubilirer (2004) 541 U.S. 267
Wallace v Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937)
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
Wygant v Jackson Bd. of Ed, 476 U.S. 267 (1986)
Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944)
Adarand Constructors v Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)
Abingdon School District v Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1964)
Aguilar v Texas. 378 U.S. 108 (1964)
Argersinger v Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972)
Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 794 (1969)
Browder v. Gale, 142 F. Supp. 707 (1956), affirmed, Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956)
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Brown v. Board of Education (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294 (1955)
California v. Robinson, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)
Chimel v California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v Volpe
City of Richmond v. Croson, 488 U.S. 469 (1989)
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)
DeFunis v Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974)
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)
Engel v Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 (1963)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Gratz v Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)
Griggs v Duke Power Co. 401 U.S. 424 (1971)
Grutter v. Bollinge, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1428 (1967)
Keyes v Denver School District 413 U.S. 189 (1973)
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Mapp v Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Miller v California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
Milliken v Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)
Monroe v. Pape 365 U.S. 167 (1961)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs Ass'n of the US v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins, Co, 463 U.S. 29 (1983)
Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934)
N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, 301 U.S. 1 (1937)
Palko v. Connecticut 302 U.S. 319 (1937)
Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. __ (2007)
Plessy v Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Pointer v Texas (1965) 380 U.S. 400 (1965)
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932)
Regents of the University of California v Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
Scenic Hudson Preservation Council et al v Federal Power Commission, 354 F. 2d. 608 (2nd Cir., 1965)
Schechter Poultry Corp v U.S., 295 U.S. 495 (1935)
The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 469 (1944)
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis 301 U.S. 548 (1937)
Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381 (1940)
Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenberg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S. 1 (1971)
Trop v Dulles 356 U.S. 86 (1958)
United Steelworkers of America v. Weber 443 U.S. 193 (1979)
U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1885)
U.S. v Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1882)
U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
Vieth v Jubilirer (2004) 541 U.S. 267
Wallace v Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937)
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
Wygant v Jackson Bd. of Ed, 476 U.S. 267 (1986)
Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944)
(1962); Abingdon School District v Schempp (1964)
, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)
Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v Federal Power Commission (1965)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs Ass'n of the US v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co (1983)
(1932)
(1966)
(1964); Chimel v California (1969)
, 395 U.S. 784 (1969)
(1968)
(1965)
(1972)
(1963)
(1961)
(1956)
(1974)
(1974)
Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers v EEOC, 478 U.S. 421 (1986)
Local 93 International Association of Firefighters v City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (1986)
United States v Paradise, 480 U.S. 149 (1987)
Johnson v Transportation Agency, Santa Clara, California, 480 U.S. 616 (1987)
Bd of Ed., 476 U.S. 267 (1986)
City of Richmond v Croson (1989); Adarand Constructors v Pena (1995)
(2003)
, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)
, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
, 372 U.S. 368 (1963)
, 376 U.S. 1 (1964)
, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
(2004)
(1985)
- 2
- Cited by