No abstract

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Through its rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court makes clear what the Constitution means and how best to interpret congressional statutes. But, because Supreme Court rulings do not implement themselves, the Court is dependent on compliance by lower courts to effectuate its policies. Using the concept of jurisprudential regimes developed by Richards and Kritzer in 2002 and specifically the Establishment Clause jurisprudential regime they identified in 2003, we evaluate the extent to which the U.S. Courts of Appeals faithfully implement the Supreme Court's policy in this area of law. We find that decision making by court of appeals panels is indeed structured by the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudential regime, even when taking into account the policy preferences of court of appeals judges. Furthermore we find that this attentiveness to legal factors is not a function of circuit court judges' fear of reversal.

No abstract