U.S. Supreme Court Decision-Making and the Free Exercise Clause

Ignagni, Joseph

doi:10.1017/s0034670500017654

Cited by 23 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Jurisprudential regimes then highlight the relevant facts that justices consider when deciding a case. But although the measures of case facts and jurisprudential regimes are confined to a single issue, such as free speech (Richards & Kritzer, 2002), freedom of religion (Ignagni, 1993(Ignagni, , 1994, or search and seizure (Segal, 1984(Segal, , 1986, the issue evolution measure has the advantage of permitting comparisons across policy areas. Thus, if two cases at the same stage of their respective development arrive on the docket in different issue areas, the dynamics and the behavioral expectations for these cases should be similar.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Keepers of the Covenant or Platonic Guardians? Decision Making on the U.S. Supreme Court

Pacelle

Marshall

Curry

2007

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Keepers of the Covenant or Platonic Guardians? Decision Making on the U.S. Supreme Court

Pacelle

Marshall

Curry

2007

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, the casebook commentary confirms that Lemon is case most likely to define a regime for the Establishment Clause. 7 Ignagni has also published a similar analysis of free exercise cases (Ignagni 1993). free exercise claim do not, according to Ignagni's analysis, significantly affect the Court's decision.…”

Section: Does Lemon V Kurtzman Define a Jurisprudential Regime?mentioning

confidence: 98%

Jurisprudential Regimes and Supreme Court Decisionmaking: The Lemon Regime and Establishment Clause Cases

Kritzer¹,

Richards²

2003

Law Soc Rev

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this research note, we apply the construct of jurisprudential regimes as described in our recent article in American Political Science Review to the area of Establishment Clause jurisprudence. We hypothesize that Lemon v. Kurtzman represented a jurisprudential regime in the Supreme Court's decisionmaking in this area of law. Our analysis shows that the predictors of the Court's decisions in the two periods differed in ways that are very consistent with the types of changes one would expect the hypothesized regime shift to produce.

show abstract

“…20 20 Ignagni (1993) also studied Free Exercise cases in the USSC, which are parallel to the cases of freedom of religion that I sampled, but his analysis was at the level of the court decision rather than the votes of the individual justices. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Attitudinal and Neo-Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel

Weinshall-Margel

2011

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines decision making in Israel's Supreme Court regarding freedom of religion, while implementing models of decision making that were researched in other high courts, mainly the U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada. Two theoretical models were studied: the attitudinal model, according to which justices decide disputes consistent with their ideological positions; and the neo-institutional approach, according to which the roles and norms of the court as an institution affect the justices' decisions. Conclusions indicate that justices' attitudes in Israel have a very strong influence on their votes on the merits. Religiously observant justices were significantly more likely to support freedom of religion claims than nonobservant justices. At the same time, the neoinstitutional claim that the law does matter is also supported by the findings. The results of the study, as compared to former studies conducted in other countries, can help better understand the influence of institutional arrangements on decision making in high courts.

show abstract

U.S. Supreme Court Decision-Making and the Free Exercise Clause

Cited by 23 publications

References 15 publications

Keepers of the Covenant or Platonic Guardians? Decision Making on the U.S. Supreme Court

Keepers of the Covenant or Platonic Guardians? Decision Making on the U.S. Supreme Court

Jurisprudential Regimes and Supreme Court Decisionmaking: The Lemon Regime and Establishment Clause Cases

Attitudinal and Neo-Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About