“Such Inferior Courts . . .”

Luse, Jennifer K.; McGovern, Geoffrey; Martinek, Wendy L.; Benesh, Sara C.

doi:10.1177/1532673x08320233

Cited by 21 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence that judges may vote with personal policy preference in mind has also been found in the federal appellate courts (Songer & Haire, 1992) as well as the state supreme courts (Brace, Langer, & Hall, 2000). Another school of research maintains that judges do give weight to law, and in particular to the perpetuation of "jurisprudential regimes" (Kritzer & Richards, 2003, 2005Luse et al, 2009;Richards & Kritzer, 2002;Scott, 2006). This evidence suggests that, even in the Supreme Court, legal considerations may carry greater weight than political ones.…”

Section: The Electoral Connection and State Supreme Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Case Visibility and the Electoral Connection in State Supreme Courts

Cann

Wilhelm

2011

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Critics traditionally portray state Supreme Court elections as low-information events that fail to accomplish the stated goal of engendering accountability to the public. Recent changes in the intensity of contestable judicial elections have led scholars to consider the effect of public opinion on state court decision making. We delineate necessary conditions for judicial responsiveness to public opinion, integrating research on state court decision making with the broader literature on representation. We then empirically test our framework for judicial responsiveness. Our findings suggest that the strength of the electoral connection between state supreme court justices and their constituents is quite dependent on method of judicial retention and the visibility of the case.

show abstract

Section: The Electoral Connection and State Supreme Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Case Visibility and the Electoral Connection in State Supreme Courts

Cann

Wilhelm

2011

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the findings over time are mixed, several general themes emerge. The first general theme is that lower courts almost always comply with, cite, and utilize Supreme Court opinions when they feel it is appropriate (see Songer and Sheehan 1990;Klein 2002;Luse et al 2009; see also Comparato and McClurg 2007). Outright defiance is extremely rare, and lower court judges, by and large, will seldom negatively apply a precedent based on ideological reasons (see Benesh and Reddick 2002).…”

Section: Us Supreme Court Justices and Their Influence On Lower Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s in a Name: How US Supreme Court Justices Shape Law and Policy in the Lower Courts

Masood¹,

Kassow²

2022

Law Soc. Inq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate whether inherent differences between the majority opinions of US Supreme Court justices result in certain justices being systematically more influential compared to their peers. We offer a theory in which lower court adoption of the Supreme Court’s precedents are influenced through justice opinion attributes, case characteristics, and circuit-level influences. To test the predictions, we examine the universe of responses by US Courts of Appeals to the signed majority opinions of individual justices by assembling a dataset of over 130,000 observations. We assess the interdependence of the mechanisms at work through a coarsened exact matching algorithm. We find that intricate tendencies in opinion writing disparately impact lower court attentiveness to the Supreme Court’s decisions. These findings offer new and important implications toward a richer understanding of the influence of individual justices on legal development and policy adoption in the American courts.

show abstract

“…22. We recognize that, in addition to public opinion, a variety of case-specific factors shape decision making on the courts of appeals, including litigant resources (e.g., Songer, Sheehan, and Haire 2000), legislative intent (e.g., Randazzo, Waterman, and Fine 2006), organized interests (e.g., Collins and Martinek 2010), and precedent (e.g., Luse et al 2008).…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Relationship between Public Opinion and Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

Calvin

Collins

Eshbaugh-Soha

2010

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The potentially undemocratic nature of the federal courts has longed flamed the fires of the debate regarding the proper role of the judiciary in American politics. Extant scholarship concerning the influence of public opinion on judicial decision making focuses almost myopically on the U.S. Supreme Court, neglecting other significant judicial actors. We explore the extent to which the federal courts act as countermajoritarian institutions by investigating the impact of public preferences on decision making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Using data from 1961-2002, we examine whether the courts of appeals are influenced by public mood, both indirectly through the federal judicial selection process and directly via responsiveness to changes in circuit and national mood. Our results indicate that public opinion affects courts of appeals decision making indirectly by way of judicial replacements, but we fail to uncover evidence that courts of appeals judges respond directly to changes in public opinion at either the regional or national levels. We conclude that, absent membership turnover, the courts of appeals are not responsive to the will of the public.

show abstract

“Such Inferior Courts . . .”

Cited by 21 publications

References 45 publications

Case Visibility and the Electoral Connection in State Supreme Courts

Case Visibility and the Electoral Connection in State Supreme Courts

What’s in a Name: How US Supreme Court Justices Shape Law and Policy in the Lower Courts

On the Relationship between Public Opinion and Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About