Supreme Court Authority in the Judiciary

Pacelle, Richard L.; Baum, Lawrence

doi:10.1177/1532673x9202000202

Cited by 28 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, when a circuit demonstrates cohesive precedent and communicates its preferences clearly through consensual decision making, it appears to enhance the lower court's ability to satisfy the circuit by rendering decisions that are more frequently affirmed. In contrast, we were not able to detect any effects stemming from fragmented decision making at the Supreme Court, a finding that is consistent with existing research concerning the impact of opinion “strength” on the implementation of Court policies (Pacelle & Baum 1992; Johnson 1979).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…The hypotheses set forth above suggest that the district court decision is more likely to stand when it conforms to Supreme Court expectations, but the Supreme Court's oversight role is often assessed in terms of policy implementation as well. Scholars have identified several factors that are likely to affect lower court interpretation of Supreme Court precedent, including opinion clarity, communication of information about the case, and perceptions of Court support for the majority opinion (Canon & Johnson 1999; Johnson 1979; Pacelle & Baum 1992). When cues from the High Court are ambiguous, one would expect more frequent monitoring activity by the circuits as litigants and federal judges grapple with issues left unaddressed by Supreme Court precedent and are offered little guidance concerning whether a majority will support the same position under a different fact pattern 6 .…”

Section: Research Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Appellate Court Supervision in the Federal Judiciary: A Hierarchical Perspective

Haire¹,

Lindquist²,

Songer³

2003

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we examine factors that influence appellate supervision in the lower tiers of the federal judicial hierarchy. Drawing on the insights of agency theory, we develop a framework to assess the determinants of circuit panel decisions to affirm or reverse federal district court rulings. Our analysis of U.S. Courts of Appeals' published civil rights decisions over a 29-year period (1971-1999) offers support for several hypothesized relationships. As expected, the outcome of appellate review varied with the level of agreement between the preferences of the circuit (as principal) and the policy position of the trial court (as agent). In addition, we found that circuits were more likely to affirm trial court decisions that were contrary to the preferences of the federal district court judge, suggesting that circuit judges may rely on ideological signals when evaluating appeals before them. We also hypothesized that the monitoring activities of circuits would be influenced by individual circuits' relationship with their principal, the Supreme Court. Consistent with these expectations, panels were more likely to reverse district court rulings that were incongruous with the policy predisposition of the High Court. In addition, as Supreme Court scrutiny of a circuit increased, the likelihood of a circuit panel subsequently reversing a district court also increased. Although further inquiry is necessary to clarify the interpretation of this result, the finding does suggest that district courts are more likely to engage in decision making that deviates from circuit preferences when that circuit faces more intense supervision from the Supreme Court.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Research Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Appellate Court Supervision in the Federal Judiciary: A Hierarchical Perspective

Haire¹,

Lindquist²,

Songer³

2003

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a theoretical sense, scholars have noted that a narrow majority may serve to undermine the legitimacy of an opinion (Wasby 1970). Still other research notes that lower court responses to US Supreme Court decisions (in particular, remands) vary depending on the size of the winning coalition (Pacelle and Baum 1992). Finally, in previous work, Spriggs and Hansford (2001) find that the US Supreme Court is more likely to overturn opinions that have many concurrences and a small winning coalition compared to cases that have few concurrences and/or a relatively large winning coalition.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 95%

The Influence of Precedent on State Supreme Courts

Kassow

Songer

Fix

2011

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of policy making by courts need to examine the actual policy adopted in the majority opinion rather than studying votes. The authors examine the responsiveness of state supreme courts to precedents announced by the US Supreme Court by examining their treatment of the precedents in their opinions, testing the utility of precedent vitality versus the impact of ideological preferences. They find that the vitality of Supreme Court precedent is a strong predictor of the way in which the precedent is treated by state courts, even after controlling for ideological distance and institutional features of state court systems.

show abstract

“…They may-and frequently do-comply, at least in the case of direct remands (Pacelle & Baum, 1992). Alternatively, they may selectively ignore federal precedent (Beatty, 1972;Canon, 1973;Romans, 1974;Tarr, 1977).…”

Section: Law Politics and Judicial Behavior In The Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Viewing the nation's judicial system more broadly, the precedents established by the U.S. Supreme Court may also be seen as a form of institutional variable, one that relates to the Supreme Court's degree of authority within an organization composed of actors at both the state and federal level (Pacelle & Baum, 1992). 5.…”

Section: -----------------------------mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Integrated Model of Privacy Decision Making in State Supreme Courts

Flemming¹,

Holian

Mezey

1998

American Politics Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study predicts state supreme court judges' votes on claims based on a right to privacy by estimating an integrated model that incorporates contextual, attitudinal, and legal variables, including U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Consistent with previous research on judicial decision making, the results suggest that judges' rulings are influenced by various extralegal factors, both individual and contextual. But politics do not entirely overwhelm the role of law. U.S. Supreme Court precedent—when it exists—substantially constrains judges' responses to privacy claims in the states.The extent to which court rulings are based on the facts of a case or on judges' own policy preferences poses a question that continues to dominate judicial research. A growing body of evidence, exemplified by Segal and Spaeth's (1993) work on the so-called attitudinal model, suggests that judges' ideologies and political values play an important role in court decisions. This conclusion dismisses the validity of the so-called legal model, which holds that case facts and precedents are-or should be-the primary determinants of how judges decide cases. According to the attitudinal model, legal factors may play a role in judicial decisions, but their impact is mediated to a large degree by the way judges perceive them. Even when reviewing the same case, liberal judges may focus on one set of facts whereas conservative judges focus on another. As a result, judges' decisions are colored by their ideological interpretations of a case.' I Authors' Note: We are grateful to Professor James Garand and several anonymous reviewers for their comments on earher versions of this article.

show abstract

Supreme Court Authority in the Judiciary

Cited by 28 publications

References 29 publications

Appellate Court Supervision in the Federal Judiciary: A Hierarchical Perspective

Appellate Court Supervision in the Federal Judiciary: A Hierarchical Perspective

The Influence of Precedent on State Supreme Courts

An Integrated Model of Privacy Decision Making in State Supreme Courts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About