Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T18:06:44.882Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Legal Doctrine Matter? Unpacking Law and Policy Preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2008

MICHAEL A. BAILEY  and
FORREST MALTZMAN
MICHAEL A. BAILEY*
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
FORREST MALTZMAN*
Affiliation:
George Washington University
*
Michael A. Bailey is the Colonel William J. Walsh Associate Professor in the Department of Government and the Public Policy Institute at Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057. E-mail: baileyma@georgetown.edu.
Forrest Maltzman is Professor of Political Science at George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052. E-mail: forrest@gwu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Judicial scholars often struggle to disentangle the effects of law and policy preferences on U.S. Supreme Court decision making. We employ a new approach to measuring the effect—if any—of the law on justices' decisions. We use positions taken on Supreme Court cases by members of Congress and presidents to identify policy components of voting. Doing so enables us to isolate the effects of three legal doctrines: adherence to precedent, judicial restraint, and a strict interpretation of the First Amendment's protection of speech clause. We find considerable evidence that legal factors play an important role in Supreme Court decision making. We also find that the effect of legal factors varies across justices.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 102 , Issue 3 , August 2008 , pp. 369 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2008

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Abrams, Floyd. 1997. “Look Who's Trashing the First Amendment.” Columbia Journalism Review 36 (November/December): 53–58.Google Scholar
Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus. 1987. 482 U.S. 569.Google Scholar
Arnold, Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, Michael A. 2007. “Comparable Preference Estimates Across Time and Institutions for the Court, Congress and Presidency.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (July): 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Robert. 2006. “New Justices Take to the Podium, Putting Personalities on Display.” Washington Post November 20, A15.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1994. “The Critics: The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model.” Law and Courts 4 (1). Washington, DC: American Political Science Association. www.law.nyu.edu/lawcourts/pubs/newsletter/spring94.pdf. (April 7, 2006).Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1997. The Puzzle of Judicial Behavior. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen, and Shipan, Charles R.. 1997. “Congressional Responses to Supreme Court Decisions: Imperfect Anticipation and Institutional Constraints.” University of California, Los Angeles. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Benesh, Sara C., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 2003. “The Supreme Court Justice-Centered Judicial Databases: The Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts.” www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/sctdata.htm. (March 30, 2007).Google Scholar
Bowers v. Hardwick. 1986. 478 U.S. 186.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul, and Stier, Marc. 1996. “Retesting Segal and Spaeth's Stare Decisis Model.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 1036–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breyer, Stephen. 2005. Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Buckley v. Valeo. 1976. 424 U.S. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Mesquita, Bueno, Ethan, , and Stephenson, Matthew. 2002. “Informative Precedent and Intrajudicial Communication.” American Political Science Review 96 (4): 755–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, George W. 2002. “President Lauds Supreme Court School Choice Decision.” Office of Media Affairs, The White House: July 1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/release/2002/07/20020701-7.html (August 20, 2008).Google Scholar
Byrd, Robert C. 1996. “Press Release: Opening the Door to Voluntary School Prayer.” http://byrd.senate.gov/speeches/2006_april/school_prayer.html. (November 20, 2007).Google Scholar
Clayton, Cornell W. 1999. “The Supreme Court and Political Jurisprudence: New and Old Institutionalisms.” In Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches, Clayton, ed. Cornell W., and Gillman, Howard. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 15–42.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. “The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data.” American Political Science Review 98 (2): 355–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dickerson v. U.S. 1999. 530 U.S. 428.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1978. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Hoekstra, Valerie, Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1998. “Do Political Preferences Change? A Longitudinal Study of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” Journal of Politics 60 (August): 801–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Martin, Andrew D., Quinn, Kevin M., and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 2007. “Ideological Drift Among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important?” Northwestern University Law Review 101 (4): 1483–503.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John, and Kramer, Larry D.. 2006. “Judicial Independence in a Democracy: Institutionalizing Judicial Restraint.” In Norms and the Law, Drobak, ed. John N.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 161–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John, and Shipan, Charles. 1990. “Congressional Influence on Bureaucracy.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6 (Special Issue): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John, and Weingast, Barry. 1992. “A Positive Theory of Statutory Interpretation.” International Review of Law and Economics 12: 263–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Barry. 2006. “Taking Law Seriously.” Perspectives on Politics 4 (2): 261–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, Tracy E., and Epstein, Lee. 1992. “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 86: 323–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gewirtz, Paul, and Golder, Chad. 2005. “So Who Are the Activists?” New York Times July 6, A23.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. 1997. United States Supreme Court Judicial Data Base, Phase II. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gilman, Howard. 1999. “The Court as an Idea, Not a Building (or a Game): Interpretative Institutionalism and the Analysis of Supreme Court Decision-Making.” In Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches, ed. Clayton, Cornell W. and Gillman, Howard. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Ginzburg v. United States. 1966. 383 U.S. 463.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Thomas C. 2007. “Justice Thomas: Constitutional ‘Stare Indecisis.’” First Amendment Center on Line: Symposium on Justice Thomas and the First Amendment. www.firstamendmentceter.org/analysis.aspx?id=19133. (November 26, 2007).Google Scholar
Greene, William. 2000. Econometric Analysis. 3rd ed. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hagle, Timothy M., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1993. “Ideological Patterns in the Justices' Voting in the Burger Court's Business Cases.” Journal of Politics 55: 492–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansford, Thomas, and Spriggs, James. 2006. The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris v. McRae. 1980. 448 U.S. 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, Anna, and Friedman, Barry. 2006. “Pulling Punches: Constitutional Decisions in the U.S. Supreme Court, 1987–2000.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 31 (4): 533–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Robert, and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 2004. “A Preference for Deference? The Supreme Court and Judicial Review.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (1): 131–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Robert M., and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 2002. “An Original Look at Originalism.” Law and Society Review 36 (1): 113–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Ronald. 1999. “Institutionalized Norms and Supreme Court Decision-Making: The Rehnquist Court on Privacy and Religion.” In Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches, Clayton, ed. Cornell W., and Gillman, HowardChicago: The University of Chicago Press, 175–98.Google Scholar
Knight, Jack, and Epstein, Lee. 1996. “The Norm of Stare Decisis.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 1018–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence v. Texas. 2003. 539 U.S. 558.Google Scholar
Lee v. Weisman. 1992. 505 U.S. 577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Edward. 1949. An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lindquist, Stefanie A., and Klein, David E.. 2006. “The Influence of Jurisprudential Considerations on Supreme Court Decisionmaking: A Study of Conflict Cases.” Law and Society Review 40 (1): 135–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, Stefanie A., and Solberg, Rorie Spill. 2007. “Judicial Review by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (1): 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andrew, and Quinn, Kevin. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10 (Spring): 134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pinello, Daniel R. 2003. Gay Rights and American Law. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood v. Casey. 1992. 505 U.S. 833.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reynolds v. Sims. 1964. 377 U.S. 533.Google Scholar
Richards, Mark J., and Kritzer, Herbert. 2002.“Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 96 (2): 305–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe v. Wade. 1973. 410 U.S. 113.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Rosen, Jeffrey. 2006. The Most Democratic Branch: How the Courts Serve America. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rostker v. Goldberg. 1980. 453 U.S. 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sala, Brian R., and Spriggs, James F. II. 2004. “Designing Tests of the Supreme Court and the Separation of Powers.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (2): 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. 2000. 530 U.S. 290.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1997. “Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Law and Courts.” American Political Science Review 91: 28–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cover, Albert. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83: 557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., Epstein, Lee, Cameron, Charles M., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1995. “The Ideological Values and Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Revisited.” Journal of Politics 57: 812–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Howard, Robert M.. 2001. “Litigant Requests to Overturn Precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court, 1985–1994.” Judicature 85: 148–57.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1996a. “The Influence of Stare Decisis on the Votes of the United States Supreme Court Justices.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (November): 971–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1996b. “Norms, Dragons, and Stare Decisis: A Response.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 1046–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selective Services v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group. 1984. 468 U.S. 841.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald, and Lindquist, Stefanie. 1996. “Not the Whole Story: The Impact of Justices' Values on Supreme Court Decision-Making.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 1049–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. 2006. “The Original U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Database.” www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/sctdata.htm. (May 21, 2007).Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J., and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 1999. Majority Rule or Minority Will: Adherence to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, John Paul. 2005. “Learning on the Job.” Presented at Fordham University School of Law Centennial Conference. http://law.fordham.edu/newsfiles/news-stevens.pdf. (January 20, 2008).Google Scholar
Texas v. Johnson. 1989. 491 U.S. 397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushnet, Mark. 2005. A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
United States v. Eichman. 1990. 496 U.S. 310.Google Scholar
United Steelworkers v. Weber. 1979. 443 U.S. 193.Google Scholar
University of Mississippi. 2003. “Subject to Interpretation.” UM Lawyer. Spring/Summer. www.law.olemiss.edu/UM%20LAW%20SPR03/UMlaw/interpretation.htm. (November 20, 2007).Google Scholar
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. 2005. Confirmation Hearings of John C. Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. 109th Congress, 1st sess. (S. Hrg. 109–158).Google Scholar
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. 2006. Confirmation Hearings of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to be Associate Justice of the United States. 109th Congress, 2nd Sess. (S. Hrg. 109–277).Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives. 1993. Congressional Record, H5171. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. 1989. 492 U.S. 490.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Herbert. 1959. “Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law.” Harvard Law Review 73 (1): 18–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, Keith E. 2001. “Taking What They Give Us: Explaining the Court's Federalism Offensive.” Duke Law Journal 51 (1): 477–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. 2002. 536 U.S. 639.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.