Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-26vmc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T07:34:08.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Issues, Agendas, and Decision Making on the Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Kevin T. McGuire  and
Barbara Palmer
Kevin T. McGuire
Affiliation:
University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill
Barbara Palmer
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the process of agenda setting, the U.S. Supreme Court is limited to selecting from among only those cases brought before it. Despite this limitation, the justices possess considerable discretion and can reshape the issues in a case as a means of advancing their policy preferences. With data drawn from the Court's opinions, we find that, over the past twenty-five years, the justices have evinced a frequent willingness to expand the issues on their plenary docket and resolve questions not formally presented by the parties. We conclude that, notwithstanding informal norms that disapprove of this practice, issue fluidity is an important component in a continuous program of agenda building.

Type
Forum
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 90 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 853 - 865
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1996

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

Adamany, David. 1991. “The Supreme Court.” In The American Courts: A Critical Assessment, ed. Gates, John B. and Johnson, Charles A.. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. 1972. 406 U.S. 320.Google Scholar
Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. 1989. 488 U.S. 428.Google Scholar
Armstrong, Virginia, and Johnson, Charles A.. 1982. “Certiorari Decision Making by the Warren and Burger Courts: Is Cue Theory Time Bound?” Polity 15 (Fall): 141–50.Google Scholar
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority. 1936. 297 U.S. 288.Google Scholar
Baker, Stewart A. 1984. “A Practical Guide to Certiorari.” Catholic University Law Review 33 (Spring):611–32.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1977. “Policy Goals in Judicial Gate-Keeping: A Proximity Model of Discretionary Jurisdiction.” American Journal of Political Science 21 (02): 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., and Feldman, Stanley. 1985. Multiple Regression in Practice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Henry Campbell. 1979. Black's Law Dictionary. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and McCrone, Donald J.. 1982. “Of Time and Judicial Activism: A Study of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1800–1973.” In Supreme Court Activism and Restraint, ed. Halpern, Stephen C. and Lamb, Charles M.. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R.. 1990. “The Discuss List: Agenda Building in the Supreme Court.” Law and Society Review 24 (3):807–36.Google Scholar
Carp, Robert A., and Stidham, Ronald. 1996. Judicial Process in America. 3d ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Donald T., and Fiske, Donald W.. 1959. “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix.” Psychological Bulletin 56 (03):81–105.Google Scholar
Casper, Jonathan D. 1976. “The Supreme Court and National Policy Making.” American Political Science Review 70 (03):50–63.Google Scholar
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. 1989. 488 U.S. 469.Google Scholar
Colorado v. Connelly. 1986. 479 U.S. 157.Google Scholar
Coit Independence Joint Venture v. FSLIC. 1989. 489 U.S. 561.Google Scholar
Cortner, Richard. 1981. The Supreme Court and the Second Bill of Rights. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Dallas v. Stanglin. 1989. 490 U.S. 19.Google Scholar
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services Dept. 1989. 489 U.S. 189.Google Scholar
Dorin, Dennis D. 1982. “‘Seize the Time’: Justice Tom Clark's Role in Mapp v. Ohio .” In Law and the Legal Process, ed. Swigert, Victoria L.. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Duckworth v. Eagan. 1989. 492 U.S. 195.Google Scholar
Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch. 1989. 488 U.S. 299.Google Scholar
Elder, Glen H. Jr., Pavalko, Eliza K., and Clipp, Elizabeth C.. 1993. Working with Archival Data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Kobylka, Joseph F.. 1992. The Supreme Court and Legal Change: Abortion and the Death Penalty. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey A., and Johnson, Timothy. 1996. “The Claim of Issue Creation on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 90 (December).Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Walker, Thomas G.. 1995. Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties and Justices. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana. 1989. 489 U.S. 46.Google Scholar
Funston, Richard. 1975. “The Supreme Court and Critical Elections.” American Political Science Review 69 (09):795–811.Google Scholar
Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. 1991. 500 U.S. 20.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1996. The Mismeasure of Man. Rev. ed. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Hall, Kermit. 1992. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. U.S. Philips Corp. 1993. 114 S.Ct. 425.Google Scholar
Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. 1995. 115 S.Ct. 961.Google Scholar
Mapp v. Ohio. 1961. 367 U.S. 643.Google Scholar
Marbury v. Madison. 1803. 1 Cranch 137.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T., and Palmer, Barbara. 1995. “Issue Fluidity on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 89 (09): 691–702.Google Scholar
Miranda v. Arizona. 1966. 384 U.S. 436.Google Scholar
Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services. 1978. 436 U.S. 658.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter F., and Pritchett, C. Herman. 1986. Courts, Judges, and Politics: An Introduction to the Judicial Process. 4th ed. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Nachmias, David, and Nachmias, Chava. 1987. Research Methods in the Social Sciences. 3d ed. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Pacelle, Richard L. Jr. 1991. The Transformation of the Supreme Court's Agenda: From the New Deal to the Reagan Administration. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Patterson v. McLean Credit Union. 1989. 491 U.S. 164.Google Scholar
Perry, H.W. Jr. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
R.A.V.. v. St. Paul. 1992. 505 U.S. 377.Google Scholar
Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co. 1976. 426 U.S. 148.Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade. 1973. 410 U.S. 113.Google Scholar
Runyon v. McCrary. 1976. 427 U.S. 160.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Bernard. 1988. The Unpublished Opinions of the Burger Court. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Bernard. 1993. A History of the Supreme Court. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R. 1979. “Concern for Policy Outputs as a Cue for Supreme Court Decisions on Certiorari.” Journal of Politics 41 (11):1185–94.Google Scholar
Spriggs, James F. II, and Wahlbeck, Paul J.. 1995. “Amicus Curiae at the Supreme Court: How Much Independent Information Do They Provide and How Does the Court Use It?” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Stanley v. Illinois. 1972. 405 U.S. 645.Google Scholar
State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co. 1977. 429 U.S. 363.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert H., Gressman, Eugene, Shapiro, Stephen M., and Geller, Kenneth S.. 1993. Supreme Court Practice. 7th ed. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1978. “Selecting Cases for Supreme Court Review: An Underdog Model.” American Political Science Review 72 (09): 902–9.Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1979. “Researching the Supreme Court in a Democratic Pluralist System: Some Thoughts on New Directions.” Law and Policy Quarterly 1 (01):53–80.Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1982. “Issue Fluidity in the U.S. Supreme Court: A Conceptual Analysis.” In Supreme Court Activism and Restraint, ed. Halpern, Stephen C. and Lamb, Charles M., Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
United States v. Sharpe. 1985. 470 U.S. 675.Google Scholar
U.S. Supreme Court Records and Briefs. Washington, DC: Microcard Editions.Google Scholar
Wasby, Stephen L. 1993. The Supreme Court in the Federal System. 4th ed. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Wolf v. Colorado. 1949. 338 U.S. 25.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.