Towards an Integrated Model of the U.S. Supreme Court's Federalism Decision Making

Collins, Paul M.

doi:10.1093/publius/pjm019

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…States enjoy a litigant status second only to the federal government among repeat players before the Supreme Court (Black & Boyd, 2012). Considering the vast array of public policies produced by the states and important issues of federalism at stake when these policies are challenged under federal law, it is hardly surprising that the Court resolves many disputes involving the states (Collins, 2007;Epstein & O'Connor, 1988;Kearney & Sheehan, 1992;Waltenburg & Swinford, 1999). But like other litigants, states must overcome a high hurdle when petitioning the Supreme Court for review given its largely discretionary, small, and shrinking docket.…”

Section: Coordinating State Litigation Before the Supreme Courtmentioning

confidence: 99%

State Coordinating Institutions and Agenda Setting on the U.S. Supreme Court

Goelzhauser

Vouvalis

2013

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What determines state success when petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for review? We suggest that states can improve the likelihood of securing Supreme Court review by coordinating litigation efforts. This coordination occurs in two ways. First, some states coordinate their appellate litigation efforts internally through the creation of state solicitors general offices. Second, external coordination occurs when states join amicus briefs at the agenda setting stage urging the Supreme Court to grant review in state-filed cases. Using new data on all state-filed certiorari petitions from the 2001-2009 terms, we find that internal and external coordination is associated with an increased likelihood of the Supreme Court granting review in statefiled cases.

show abstract

Section: Coordinating State Litigation Before the Supreme Courtmentioning

confidence: 99%

State Coordinating Institutions and Agenda Setting on the U.S. Supreme Court

Goelzhauser

Vouvalis

2013

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many studies examine whether presence of certain facts correlates with case outcomes in the expected manner (for example, Songer, Segal, and Cameron 1994;George and Epstein 1992;Songer and Haire 1992;Segal 1984). 5 In a similar vein, scholars examine whether changes in "jurisprudential regimes" affect judges' decisions (Richards and Kritzer 2002;Richards 2003, 2005;Collins 2007). Several studies examine the relationship between precedent and judges' decisions (for example, Hansford and Spriggs 2006;Brenner and Spaeth 1995;Spaeth and Segal 1999;Segal and Spaeth 1996;Brenner and Stier 1996;Songer and Lindquist 1996;Cross 2005;Songer, Segal, and Cameron 1994;Sisk, Heise, and Morriss 1998).…”

Section: Law and Politics In Judicial Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Law Matter? Theory and Evidence from Single-Subject Adjudication

Gilbert¹

2011

The Journal of Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical studies have examined the effects of law and politics on judicial decision making, but many legal scholars are dissatisfied with how these studies account for law. This paper provides a novel survey technique for measuring law. I demonstrate this technique by examining judicial decision making in cases involving the single-subject rule. The rule limits ballot propositions to one "subject," a standard that vests judges with some discretion.Measures of law developed with the surveys strongly predict judges' votes in single-subject cases. Moving from the proposition in the sample with the lowest subject count to the one with the highest is associated with a 78-percentage-point increase in the likelihood of a judge finding a violation of the rule. Measures of ideology also predict judges' votes, especially when propositions are politically salient and when the law is indeterminate.

show abstract

“…The states' rights model also includes a number of variables that previous scholarship has identified as relevant to analyzing judicial voting in federalism cases (e.g., Collins 2006;Solberg and Lindquist 2006) or more generally in models involving judicial review (Sala and Spriggs 2004). These include the principal legal issue (Tenth versus Eleventh Amendment challenge); the ideological proximity of the challenged statute to the judge; the ideological proximity of challenged statute to Congress; the additional number of liberal amicus curiae briefs (versus conservative briefs); and the age of the statute.…”

Section: Independent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Federalist Society's Influence on the Federal Judiciary

Scherer

Miller

2008

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Only twenty-five years after its founding, the Federalist Society today boasts a nationwide membership including renowned attorneys, politicians, policy makers, and jurists. Although the Society maintains that it is not a political organization, liberal political activists claim the Society has long pursued an ambitious—and extremely conservative—political agenda. In this article we ask: do members of the Federalist Society decide cases in a more conservative manner than other nonmember jurists? Using data on decision making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals, we find Federalist Society members are significantly more conservative than nonmembers and examine the long-term implications of our study.

show abstract

Towards an Integrated Model of the U.S. Supreme Court's Federalism Decision Making

Cited by 13 publications

References 31 publications

State Coordinating Institutions and Agenda Setting on the U.S. Supreme Court

State Coordinating Institutions and Agenda Setting on the U.S. Supreme Court

Does Law Matter? Theory and Evidence from Single-Subject Adjudication

The Federalist Society's Influence on the Federal Judiciary

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About