Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T22:20:48.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Supreme Court's Impact

Some Problems of Conceptualization and Measurement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Stephen L. Wasby
Stephen L. Wasby*
Affiliation:
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The impact of what judges decide is a crucial part of what is studied by those sharing a political rather than only a legal perspective on the United States Supreme Court. It has become important as we have shifted our attention from “output, which is the decision of the Court including its orders and statement of policy” to consideration of “outcome, which is the final results or impact of output” (Barth, 1968: 315, note). This development is much more recent than the beginnings of the political perspective on the courts. Explicit attention to impact, backed by studies of impacts of particular decisions, is less than twenty years old, dating from the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which made political scientists aware that compliance with decisions of the Supreme Court was neither automatic, immediate, nor uniform. As Krislov (1963: 7) has remarked, from the standpoint of Court process, the decision in Brown v. Board of Education has had its greatest effect in educating “students as to the limits and operations of the court system generally.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , August 1970 , pp. 41 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 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

Ex parte BAKELITE CORP. (1929) 279 U.S. 438.Google Scholar
BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA (1954) 347 U.S. 483; 349 U.S. 294.Google Scholar
COLE v., YOUNG (1956) 351 U.S. 536.Google Scholar
DUNCAN v., LOUISIANA (1968) 391 U.S. 145.Google Scholar
ESTES v., TEXAS (1965) 381 U.S. 532.Google Scholar
FLORIDA ex rel. HAWKINS v. BOARD OF CONTROL (1954) 347 U.S. 971.Google Scholar
FREEDMAN v. MARYLAND (1965) 380 U.S. 51.Google Scholar
GARDNER v. BRODERICK (1968) 392 U.S. 273.Google Scholar
GARRITY v. NEW JERSEY (1967) 385 U.S. 493.Google Scholar
GITLOW v. NEW YORK (1925) 268 U.S. 652.Google Scholar
GLIDDEN v. ZDANOK (1962) 370 U.S. 530.Google Scholar
LAMONT v. POSTMASTER GENERAL (1965) 381 U.S. 301.Google Scholar
MALLORY v. UNITED STATES (1957) 354 U.S. 449.Google Scholar
MARBURY v. MADISON (1803) 1 Cranch 137.Google Scholar
NELSON AND GLOBE v. LOS ANGELES (1960) 362 U.S. 1.Google Scholar
PENN CENTRAL MERGER AND N AND W INCLUSION CASES (1968) 389 U.S. 486.Google Scholar
PERMIAN BASIN AREA RATE CASES (1968) 390 U.S. 747.Google Scholar
REYNOLDS v. SIMS (1964) 377 U.S. 533.Google Scholar
ROTH v. UNITED STATES (1957) 354 U.S. 476.Google Scholar
UNITED STATES v. STANDARD OIL CO. (1947) 332 U.S. 301.Google Scholar
YATES v. UNITED STATES (1957) 354 U.S. 298.Google Scholar

References

BARTH, T. (1968) “Perception and acceptance of Supreme Court decisions at the state and local level.” J. of Public Law 17 (June): 308–350.Google Scholar
BECKER, T. (1969) The Impact of Supreme Court Decisions: Empirical Studies. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
BLAUSTEIN, A. and C. C., FERGUSON Jr. (1957) Desegregation and the Law: The Meaning and Effect of the School Desegregation Cases. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Univ. Press.Google Scholar
CAHN, E. (1966) “Law in the consumer perspective,” in Cahn, L. (ed.) Confronting Injustice: The Edmond Cahn Reader. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
CRAIN, R. (1968) The Politics of School Desegregation: Comparative Case Studies of Community Structure and Policy-making. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
FAINSOD, L., L., GORDON, and J. C., PALAMOUNTAIN Jr. (1959) Government and the American Economy. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
FEEST, J. (1968) “Compliance with legal regulations: observation of stop sign behavior.” Law and Society Rev. 2 (May): 447461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GIBBS, J. P. (1968) “Definitions of law and empirical questions.” Law and Society Rev. 2 (May): 429446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HOOK, S. (1943) The Hero in History. New York: John Day.Google Scholar
JOHNSON, R. (1967) The Dynamics of Compliance. Evanston: Northwestern Univ. Press.Google Scholar
JONES, E. M. (1966) “Impact research and sociology of law: some tentative proposals.” Wisconsin Law Rev. 1 (Spring): 331–339.Google Scholar
KELLY, A. and W., HARBISON (1955) The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
KRISLOV, S. (1968) The Supreme Court and Political Freedom. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
KRISLOV, S. (1963) “The perimeters of power: patterns of compliance and opposition to Supreme Court decisions.” Presented to the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
LaFAVE, W. (1965) Arrest: The Decision to Take a Suspect into Custody. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
MASSELL, G. (1968) “Law as an instrument of revolutionary change in a traditional milieu: the case of Soviet Central Asia.” Law and Society Rev. 2 (February): 179–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MILLER, A. S. (1968) The Supreme Court and American Capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
MILLER, A. S. (1967) “The power of the Supreme Court in the age of the positive state.” Duke Law J. 1967 (April): 273–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MUIR, W. K. Jr. (1967) Prayer in the Public Schools: Law and Attitude Change. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
MURPHY, W. (1962) Congress and the Court. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
MURPHY, W. [eds.] (1961) Courts, Judges, and Politics: An Introduction to the Judicial Process. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
NAGEL, S. (forthcoming) The Effects of Alternative Legal Policies.Google Scholar
NAGEL, S. (1969) The Legal Process from a Behavioral Perspective. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey.Google Scholar
NEWMAN, D. (1966) Conviction: The Determination of Guilt or Innocence without Trial. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
NOONE, M. F. (1969) “Federal Medical Care Recovery Act.” Amer. Bar Assn. J. 55 (March): 259–261.Google Scholar
PETRICK, M. J. (1968) “The Supreme Court and authority acceptance.” Western Pol. Q. 21 (March): 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCHMIDHAUSER, J. (1958) The Supreme Court as Final Arbiter in Federal-State Relations, 1789-1957. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
SHAPIRO, M. (1968) The Supreme Court and Administrative Agencies. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
WARREN, C. (1922) The Supreme Court in United States History. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
WASBY, S. (1970) Political Science: the Discipline and its Dimensions. New York: Charles Scribner.Google Scholar
WASBY, S. (1968) “The pure and the prurient: the Supreme Court, obscenity and Oregon policy,” in Everson, D. (ed.) The Supreme Court as Policy-maker: Three Studies on the Impact of Judicial Decisions. Carbondale: Public Affairs Research Bureau, Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
WELLS, R. and J., GROSSMAN (1966) “The concept of judicial policy-making.” J. of Public Law 15, 2: 286–310.Google Scholar