Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
Based on over 75 personal interviews with members of Congress and their staffs, this article examines how three House authorization committees differ in their reactions to federal court decisions versus their reactions to federal agency decisions. In general, Congress holds the courts in higher esteem than it does the agencies. The courts are generally seen as less political than the agencies, and committee reactions to court decisions are seen as much more unusual than reactions to agency decisions. The attitudes of the three committees toward decisions of the other institutions vary in ways consonant with their institutional roles, the committees' political cultures, and the primary goals of the committee members. The domination of lawyer members on the policy oriented Judiciary Committee results in that committee being the most deferential to the courts. The constituency focused Interior Committee is oriented to local interests and members' reelection goals, and it responds to the courts or to agencies only when constituency pressures force it to do so. The power oriented Energy and Commerce Committee treats the courts and the agencies just like any other political actors.
1. Bickel, Alexander M., The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962).Google Scholar
2. Agresto, John, The Supreme Court and Constitutional Democracy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
3. Johnson, Charles A. and Canon, Bradley C., Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1984).Google Scholar
4. Katzmann, Robert A., editor, Judges and Legislators: Toward Institutional Comity (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1988).Google Scholar
5. Fisher, Louis, Constitutional Dialogues: Interpretation as Political Process (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. March, James G. and Olsen, Johan P., “The New Institutianalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life,” American Political Science Review 78 (1984): 734–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; March, James G. and Olsen, Johan P., Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics (New York: The Free Press, 1989).Google Scholar
7. Fiorina, Morris P., “The Presidency and Congress: An Electoral Connection?” in The Presidency and the Political System, ed. Nelson, Michael, 3rd ed. (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1990).Google Scholar
8. Epstein, Lee, Walker, Thomas G., and Dixon, William J, “The Supreme Court and Criminal Justice Disputes: A Neo-institutional Perspective,” American Journal of Political Science 33 (1989): 825–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Mccubbins, Mathew D., and Sullivan, Terry, “Institutional Aspects of Decision Processes,” in Congress: Structure and Policy, ed. Mccubbins, Mathew D. and Sullivan, Terry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).Google Scholar
10. Smith, Rogers M., “Political Jurisprudence, the ‘New Institutionalism,’ and the Future of Public Law,” American Political Science Review 82 (1988): 89–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, Rogers M., “The New Institutionalism and Normative Theory: Reply to Professor Barber,” in Studies in American Political Development, ed. Orren, Karen an Showronek, Stephen, vol 3 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
11. Hall, Melinda Gann and Brace, Paul, “Order in the Courts: A Neoinstitutional Approach to Judicial Consensus,” Western Political Quarterly, 42 (1989): 391–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hall, Melinda Gann and Brace, Paul, “Toward an Integrated Model of Judicial Voting Behavior,” American Politics Quarterly, 20 (1992): 147–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Cameron, Charles M., Cover, Albert D., and Segal, Jeffrey A., “Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees: A Neoinstitutional Model,” American Political Science Review 84 (1990): 525–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Searing, Donald D., “Roles, Rules, and Rationality in the New Institution alism,” American Political Science Review 85 (1991): 1239–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Gates, John B., “Theory, Methods, and the New Institutionalism in Judicial Research,” in The American Courts: A Critical Assessment, ed. Gates, John B. and Johnson, Charles A. (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1991).Google Scholar
15. March, and Olsen, , “The New Institutionalism,” p. 738.Google Scholar
16. March, and Olsen, , Rediscovering Institutions, p. 21.Google Scholar
17. See Miller, Mark C., “Congressional Committees and the Federal Courts: A Neo-Institutional Perspective,” Western Political Quarterly 45 (1992): 949–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Henschen, Beth M., “Congressional Response to the Statutory Interpretations of the Supreme Court,” American Politics Quarterly (1983), pp. 443–44.Google Scholar
19. Aberbach, Joel D., Keeping a Watchful Eye: The Politics of Congressional Oversight (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1990), p. 227.Google Scholar
20. See, e.g., Bullock, Charles S., “Motivations for U.S. Congressional Committee Preferences: Freshmen of the 92nd Congress,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 1 (1976): 201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hall, Richard L., “Participation and Purpose in Committee Decision Making,” American Political Science Review 81 (1987): 105–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, Steven S. and Deering, Christopher J., Committees in Congress (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1984)Google Scholar; Smith, Steven S. and Deering, Christopher J., Committees in Congress, 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1990).Google Scholar
21. Fenno, Richard F., Congressmen in Committees (Boston: Little Brown, 1973).Google Scholar
22. See Davidson, Roger H., Oleszek, Walter J., and Kephart, Thomas, “One Bill, Many Committees: Multiple Referrals in the U.S. House of Representatives,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 13 (1988): 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. See Mark C. Miller, “Differences between Lawyers and Non-Lawyers: Legislator Attitudes toward the Courts in the U.S.House, the Ohio General Assembly, and the Massachusetts Legislature” (Paper presented at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association); Miller, Mark C. “Lawyers in Congress: What Difference Does It Make?” Congress and the Presidency, 20 (1993): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Smith, and Deering, , Committees in Congress, pp. 107–108.Google Scholar
25. See Smith, and Deering, , Committees in Congress, 2nd ed., pp. 87, 97.Google Scholar
26. See Smith, and Deering, , Committees in Congress, p. 102.Google Scholar
27. Davidson, Roger H., “What Judges Ought to Know about Lawmaking in Congress,” in Judges and Legislators: Toward Institutional Comity, ed. Katzmann, Robert A. (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1988), p. 105.Google Scholar
28. Perkins, Lynette P., “Member Recruitment to a Mixed Goal Committee: The House Judiciary Committee,” Journal of Politics 43 (1981), pp. 358–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. See Cohodas, Nadine, “House Judiciary Looks to Post-Rodino Era,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 7 06 1986, p. 1307.Google Scholar
30. See Smith, and Deering, , Committees in Congress, 2nd ed., pp. 96.Google Scholar
31. See Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I., “Consolidating Power in the House: The Rise of a New Oligarchy,” in Congress Reconsidered, ed. Dodd, Lawrenc C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I, 4th ed. (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1989).Google Scholar
32. Smith, and Deering, , Committees in Congress, 2nd ed., pp. 116–17.Google Scholar
33. See “House Democrats Kill Proposal for Contribution Loophole,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 8 December 1990, p. 4068.
34. Duncan, Phil, editor, Politics in America 1990 (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1989), pp. 769–71.Google Scholar
35. See Alston, Chuck, “As Clean-Air Bill Took Off, So Did PAC Donations,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 17 03 1990, pp. 811–17Google Scholar; Alston, Chuck “Lobbyists Storm Capitol Hill, Clash Over Banking Bill,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 24 08 1991, pp. 2313–18.Google Scholar
36. Quoted in Smith, and Deering, , Committees in Congress, 2nd ed., p. 61.Google Scholar
