In the relationship between the Supreme Court and lower courts, one important issue is the extent to which lower court judges recognize and respond to the Supreme Court's authority. This article explores the Court's authority through a study of cases remanded by the Court during the 1965-1974 terms. We examine the relationship between the outcomes of cases in the lower courts after Supreme Court remands and several conditions that seem likely to affect the strength of the Court's authority. The statistical results indicate that most of these conditions have a significant impact on outcomes. More broadly, these results provide evidence that the Court's authority is a significant force in shaping the behavior of judges in the lower courts.The relationship between the Supreme Court and the courts below it has been a continuing concern for students of the judicial process. For scholars interested in this relationship, the primary focus has been the influence that the Court holds over other courts in the federal and state judicial systems.The scholarship on this issue has illuminated a great deal about the interaction between the Supreme Court and other courts, particularly the complexity of their relationship. As yet, however, it has not provided a clear picture of the conditions that affect the Court's influence over the policies of lower courts.The study presented in this article is an exploration of some of those conditions. The study examines the outcomes of cases remanded to Authors' Note: We are pleased to acknowledge the helpful comments of Cheryl Reedy, Paul Weber, and APQ's anonymous reviewers on earlier drafts of this article. We also appreciate the valuable advice and assistance that we received from several people, particularly
There are three general models of Supreme Court decision making: the legal model, the attitudinal model and the strategic model. But each is somewhat incomplete. This book advances an integrated model of Supreme Court decision making that incorporates variables from each of the three models. In examining the modern Supreme Court, since Brown v. Board of Education, the book argues that decisions are a function of the sincere preferences of the justices, the nature of precedent, and the development of the particular issue, as well as separation of powers and the potential constraints posed by the president and Congress. To test this model, the authors examine all full, signed civil liberties and economic cases decisions in the 1953–2000 period. Decision Making by the Modern Supreme Court argues, and the results confirm, that judicial decision making is more nuanced than the attitudinal or legal models have argued in the past.
How do the justices of the Supreme Court make their decisions? How does the Supreme Court of the United States make its decisions? The answer to these questions may not be the same. In studying judicial decision making, there has been a disconnection between individual and institutional levels of analysis. Lifetime tenure insulates individual justices and permits them to act on their substantive preferences. At the same time, the Court lacks the “sword and purse” and must rely on the other branches to fund or implement its directives. This study develops an integrative model to explain Supreme Court decision making. Using constitutional civil liberties and civil rights cases in the 1953 to 2000 period, conditions favorable to the attitudinal model, we find that institutional decision making is a function of attitudinal, strategic, and legal factors.
Presidential influence transcends some of the barriers imposed by the separation of powers to influence decision making by the Supreme Court. Specifically, we test Robert Scigliano's proposition that an informal and limited alliance exists between the president and the Court. The analysis utilizes Supreme Court decisions on civil rights and civil liberties cases from 1953 to 2000 to assess the effects of the presidency, Congress, judicial policy preferences, and legal factors on the Court. The findings demonstrate that presidential ideology influences Court decisions, while the effects of Congress are more conditional and limited. The results provide support for Scigliano's notion of an informal alliance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.