Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-7nlkj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-04T21:19:25.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodological Concerns in Studying Supreme Court Efficacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

James P. Levine
James P. Levine*
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Only a few years ago it was customary and appropriate to begin an essay on Supreme Court efficacy by lamenting the paucity of empirical studies dealing with this problem. Such an introduction is no longer in order, since we have recently witnessed a flourishing of research on the actual consequences of judicial decisions. Both the appearance of at least one book of readings on Supreme Court impact (Becker, 1969) and the focusing of panels around this topic at political science conventions are indications of the emergence of “legal impact” as a significant field of scholarly inquiry.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , May 1970 , pp. 583 - 612
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 by the 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.)

References

Cases

ABINGTON TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT v. SCHEMPP 374 U.S. 203 (1963).Google Scholar
ALDERMAN v. UNITED STATES 394 U.S. 165 (1969).Google Scholar
ALEXANDER v. HOLMES COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 24 LEd2d 19 (1969).Google Scholar
BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Google Scholar
BUTENKO v. UNITED STATES 394 U.S. 165 (1969).Google Scholar
DANDRIDGE v. WILLIAMS 90 S. Ct. 149 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DUNCAN v. LOUISIANA 391 U.S. 145 (1968).Google Scholar
In re GAULT 387 U.S. 1 (1967).Google Scholar
GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT 372 U.S. 335 (1963).Google Scholar
GINSBERG v. NEW YORK 390 U.S. 629 (1968).Google Scholar
GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT 381 U.S. 479 (1965).Google Scholar
HARPER v. VIRGINIA 383 U.S. 663 (1966).Google Scholar
IVANOV v. UNITED STATES 384 U.S. 165 (1969).Google Scholar
JONES v. MAYER 389 U.S. 968 (1968).Google Scholar
LEARY v. UNITED STATES 23 LEd2d 57 (1969).Google Scholar
MAPP v. OHIO 367 U.S. 643 (1961).Google Scholar
MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT v. GOBITIS 310 U.S. 586 (1940).Google Scholar
MIRANDA v. ARIZONA 384 U.S. 436 (1966).Google Scholar
NEW YORK TIMES v. SULLIVAN 376 U.S. 254 (1964).Google Scholar
POWELL v. TEXAS 392 U.S. 514 (1968).Google Scholar
ROTH v. UNITED STATES 354 U.S. 476 (1957).Google Scholar
SHAPIRO v. THOMPSON 394 U.S. 618 (1969).Google Scholar
SHEPPARD v. MAXWELL 384 U.S. 333 (1966).Google Scholar
TERRY v. OHIO 387 U.S. 929 (1967).Google Scholar
UNITED STATES v. GILMORE 372 U.S. 39 (1963).Google Scholar
UNITED STATES v. SEEGER 380 U.S. 163 (1965).Google Scholar
WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE 319 U.S. 624 (1943).Google Scholar
WILLIAMS v. RHODES 393 U.S. 23 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
YATES v. UNITED STATES 356 U.S. 363 (1958).Google Scholar
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND TUBE COMPANY v. SAWYER 343 U.S. 579 (1952).Google Scholar
ZORACH v. CLAUSON 343 U.S. 306 (1952).Google Scholar

References

ABRAHAM, H. (1967) Freedom and the Court. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
BARTH, T. (1968) “Perception and acceptance of Supreme Court decisions at the state and local level.” J. of Public Law 17, 2: 308–350.Google Scholar
BAUER, R. (1966) “Detection and anticipation of impact: the nature of the task,” pp. 1–67 in Bauer, R. (ed.) Social Indicators. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
BECKER, T. [ed.] (1969) The Impact of Supreme Court Decisions. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
BIRKBY, R. (1966) “The Supreme Court and the Bible Belt: Tennessee reaction to the ‘Schempp’ decision.” Midwest J. of Pol. Sci. 10 (August): 304–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BLALOCK, H. Jr. (1961) Causal Inference in Nonexperimental Research. Causal Inference in Nonexperimental Research: Univ. of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
BRYCE, J. (1909) “The relations of Political science to history and to practice.” Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 3 (February): 1–19.Google Scholar
CAMPBELL, D. and D., FISKE (1959) “Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.” Psychological Bull. 56 (March): 81–105.Google Scholar
CAMPBELL, D. and H. L., ROSS (1968) “The Connecticut crackdown on speeding: time-series data in quasi-experimental analysis.” Law and Society Rev. 3 (August): 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CAMPBELL, D. and J., STANLEY (1966) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand-McNally.Google Scholar
CARMEN, I. (1967) Movies, Censorship and the Law. Movies, Censorship and the Law: Univ. of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
CLEAVER, E. (1968) Soul on Ice. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
DEUTSCH, K. (1966) The Nerves of Government. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
DOLBEARE, K. and P., HAMMOND (1969) “Local elites, the impact of judicial decisions and the process of change.” Presented at the 1969 Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Harvard Law Review (1954) [Note] “Evasion of Supreme Court mandates in cases remanded to state courts since 1941.” 67 (May): 1251–1280.Google Scholar
HYMAN, H. and P., SHEATSLEY (1964) “Attitudes toward desegregation.” Scientific Amer. 211 (July): 16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JOHNSON, R. (1967) The Dynamics of Compliance: Supreme Court Decision-Making from a New Perspective. The Dynamics of Compliance: Supreme Court Decision-Making from a New Perspective: Northwestern Univ. Press.Google Scholar
JONES, E. (1966) “Impact research and sociology of law: some tentative suggestions.” Wisconsin Law Rev. 1966 (Spring): 331–339.Google Scholar
KRISLOV, S. (1965) The Supreme Court in the Political Process. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
LASSWELL, H. (1958) Politics: Who Gets What, When, How? Cleveland: World Publishing Co.Google Scholar
LEFSTEIN, N., V., STAPLETON, and L., TEITELBAUM (1969) “In search of juvenile justice: Gault and its implementations.” Law and Society Rev. 3 (May): 491–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LEMPERT, R. (1966) “Strategies of research design in the legal impact study.” Law and Society Rev. 1 (November): 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LEVINE, J. (1970) “The Supreme Court and sex censorship: a study of judicial efficacy.” forthcoming in Fiszman, J. (ed.) The American Political Arena. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
LEVINE, J. and T., BECKER (1969) “Toward and beyond a theory of Supreme Court impact.” Presented at 1969 Meeting of American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
LINDBLOM, C. (1959) “The science of muddling through.” Public Administration Rev. 19 (Winter): 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MAYO, L. and E., JONES (1964–1965) “Legal-policy decision process: alternative thinking and the predictive function.” George Washington Law Rev. 33 (October): 318–456.Google Scholar
MEDALIE, R., L., ZEITZ, and P., ALEXANDER (1968) “Custodial police interrogation in our nation's capital: the attempt to implement Miranda.” Michigan Law Rev. 66 (May): 1347–1422.Google Scholar
MILLER, A. (1964—1965) “On the need for ‘impact analysis’ of Supreme Court decisions.” Georgetown Law J. 53 (Winter): 365–401.Google Scholar
MITCHELL, W. (1967) “The shape of political theory to come: from political sociology to political economy.” Amer. Behavioral Scientist 11 (November): 19–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MUIR, W. Jr. (1967) Prayer and the Public Schools. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
MURPHY, W. (1959) “Lower court checks on Supreme Court power.” Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 53 (December): 1017–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PELTASON, J. W. (1961) Fifty-Eight Lonely Men: Federal Judges and School Desegregation. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
POPPER, K. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Science Editions.Google Scholar
SCHUBERT, G. and C., PRESS (1964) “Measuring malapportionment.” Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 58 (June): 303–327 and 58 (December): 966–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCHWARTZ, R. and S., ORLEANS (1967) “On legal sanctions.” Univ. of Chicago Law Rev. 34 (Winter): 274–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SELLTIZ, C., M., JAHODA, M., DEUTSCH, and S., COOK (1963) Research Methods in Social Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
SKOLNICK, J. (1967) Justice Without Trial. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
SORAUF, F.J. (1959) “Zorach v. Clauson: the impact of a Supreme Court decision.” Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 53 (September): 777–791.Google Scholar
TREBACH, A. (1964) The Rationing of Justice. The Rationing of Justice: Rutgers Univ. Press.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1969) Toward a Social Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
WAY, H. F. Jr. (1968) “Survey research on judicial decisions: the prayer and Bible reading cases.” Western Pol. Q. 21 (June): 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WEBB, E., D., CAMPBELL, R., SCHWARTZ, and L., SECHREST (1966) Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
WESTIN, A. (1967) Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
Yale Law Journal (1967) [Note] “Interrogations in New Haven: the impact of Miranda.” 76 (July): 1521–1648.Google Scholar
ZETTERBERG, H. (1965) On Theory and Verification in Sociology. On Theory and Verification in Sociology: Bedminister Press.Google Scholar