The Nature of Legal Change on the U.S. Supreme Court: Jurisprudential Regimes Theory and Its Alternatives

Abstract

Jurisprudential regimes theory (JRT) posits that legal change on the U.S. Supreme Court occurs in a drastic, structuralbreak-like manner. Methodological debates present conflicting evidence for JRT, which has implications for the important law versus ideology debate. We confront this debate by first elaborating two alternative theoretical perspectives to JRTevolutionary change and legal stability. Our analytical framework focuses on two key substantive effects of jurisprudential categories on the Court's case outcomes-relative differences between categories over multiple time periods and longitudinal differences across time periods. Importantly, different pieces of empirical evidence can provide support for different dynamic processes. The extent to which "law matters" is not necessarily tied to one particular model of legal change. Empirical analysis of updated and backdated free expression data generates key findings consistent with JRT, legal stability, and evolutionary change. We discuss the implications of the results for understanding legal change and legal influence.

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

“…A particularly promising area of future research is examining how the justices, individually, borrow from lower court opinions and whether language from certain justices is more likely to make its way within the opinions of inferior courts. In particular, using Herbert Kritzer and Mark Richards’s (2005) jurisprudential regimes framework to examine differences in opinion language and use of precedents may be fruitful for further examination of the influence of individual justices (Richards and Kritzer 2002; Bartels and O’Geen 2015).…”

Constitutional accountability for police shootings

“…To develop a theoretical framework for understanding constitutional evaluations, I bridge literatures on judicial decision making and policing perceptions, which separately but similarly emphasize how law, politics, and race can influence assessments. With respect to law, for example, there is mounting evidence of its impact on judicial decision making (Bailey & Maltzman, 2012; Bartels & O'Geen, 2015; Klein, 2009) and public assessments of police shootings (McGowen & Wylie, 2020; Porter et al, 2021). Integrating these literatures yields the expectation that courts will be more likely on average to find a police shooting constitutionally permissible when governing precedent indicates that the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances.…”

The dynamics of ideology drift among U.S. Supreme Court justices: A functional data analysis

“…Thus it is ideally suited to provide empirical evidence for the debate whether judicial preferences are constant or changing over time [26][27][28][29][30][31].…”