Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-g9frx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T00:57:56.981Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Tracey E. George  and
Lee Epstein
Tracey E. George
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Lee Epstein
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How does the U.S. Supreme Court reach decisions? Since the 1940s, scholars have focused on two distinct explanations. The legal model suggests that the rule of law (stare decisis) is the key determinant. The extralegal model posits that an array of sociological, psychological, and political factors produce judicial outcomes. To determine which model better accounted for judicial decisions, we used Supreme Court cases involving the imposition of the death penalty since 1972 and estimated and evaluated the models' success in accounting for decisional outcomes. Although both models performed quite satisfactorily, they possessed disturbing weaknesses. The legal perspective overpredicted liberal outcomes, the extralegal model conservative ones. Given these results, we tested another proposition, namely that extralegal and legal frameworks present codependent, not mutually exclusive, explanations of decision making. Based on these results, we offer an integrated model of Supreme Court decision making that contemplates a range of political and environmental forces and doctrinal constraints.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 86 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 323 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1992 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams v. Texas. 1980. 448 U.S. 38.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and Nelson, Forrest D.. 1984. Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series, no. 45. Beverly Hills: Sage.10.4135/9781412984744Google Scholar
Austin, John. 1904. Lectures on Jurisprudence. London: Murray.Google Scholar
Barnum, David G. 1985. “The Supreme Court and Public Opinion: Judicial Decision Making in the Post-New Deal Period.” Journal of Politics 47:652–65.10.2307/2130901Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1989a. The Supreme Court. 3d ed. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1989b. “Comparing the Policy Positions of Supreme Court Justices of Different Periods.” Western Political Quarterly 42:509–21.10.1177/106591298904200405Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul, Hagle, Timothy M., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1990 “Increasing the Size of Minimum Winning Original Coalitions on the Warren Court.” Polity. 23:309–18.10.2307/3235079Google Scholar
Brigham, John. 1978. Constitutional Language: An Interpretation of Judicial Decisions. Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A. 1991. “Courts and Public Opinion.” In The American Courts, ed. Gates, John B. and Johnson, Charles A.. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Cameron, Charles, Cover, Albert, and Jeffrey, Segal. 1989. “The Puzzle of Roll Call Voting on Supreme Court Nominees: A Neoinstitutional Perspective.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Cardozo, Benjamin N. 1921. The Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Carp, Robert H., and Stidham, Ronald. 1985. The Federal Courts. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Carter, Lief H. 1985. Contemporary Constitutional Lawmaking. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Casper, Jonathan D. 1972. The Politics of Civil Liberties. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Coker v. Georgia. 1977. 433 U.S. 584.Google Scholar
Corwin, Edward S. 1924. “Constitutional Law in 1922–23.” American Political Science Review 18:49–78.10.2307/1943695Google Scholar
“Critical Legal Studies Symposium” [special issues]. 1984. Stanford Law Review 36(1–2).Google Scholar
Cushman, Robert E. 1929. “Constitutional Law in 1927–28.” American Political Science Review 23:78–101.10.2307/1945582Google Scholar
Cushman, Robert E. 1938. “Constitutional Law in 1936–37.” American Political Science Review 32:278–310.10.2307/1948670Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1957. “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-maker.” Journal of Public Law 6:279–95.Google Scholar
Enmund v. Florida. 1982. 458 U.S. 782.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Kobylka, Joseph F.. 1992. The Supreme Court and Legal Change: The Death Penalty and Abortion. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and O'Connor, Karen. 1988. “States and the U.S. Supreme Court: An Examination of Litigation Outcomes.” Social Science Quarterly 69:660–74.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Walker, Thomas G., and Dixon, William J.. 1989. “The Supreme Court and Criminal Justice Disputes: A Neo-institutional Perspective.” American Journal of Political Science 33:825–841.10.2307/2111111Google Scholar
Estelle v. Smith. 1980. 451 U.S. 454.Google Scholar
Fisher, Franklin M. 1958. “The Mathematical Analysis of Supreme Court Decisions and the Abuse of Quantitative Methods.” American Political Science Review 52:321–38.10.2307/1952319Google Scholar
Frank, Jerome. 1930. Law and the Modern Mind. New York: Coward-McCann.Google Scholar
Frank, Jerome. 1950. Courts on Trial: Myth and Reality in American Jurisprudence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Furman v. Georgia. 1972. 408 U.S. 238.10.1038/238408a0Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculation on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law and Society Review 9:95–160.10.2307/3053023Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. 1978. “Judges' Role Orientations, Attitudes, and Decisions: An Interactive Model.” American Political Science Review 72:911–24.10.2307/1955111Google Scholar
Godfrey v. Georgia. 1980. 446 U.S. 420.Google Scholar
Gregg v. Georgia. 1976. 428 U.S. 153.Google Scholar
Hagle, Timothy M. 1989. “Constitutional Decision Making: The Obscenity Decisions of the Warren Burger, and Rehnquist Courts.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Hensley, Thomas R., and Rhoads, James C.. 1989. “Studying the Studies: An Assessment of Judicial Politics Research in Four Major Political Science Journals.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Hildwin v. Florida. 1989. 109 S. Ct. 2055.Google Scholar
Holmes, Oliver Wendell. 1881. The Common Law. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Ignagni, Joseph A. 1990. “Explaining and Predicting Supreme Court Decision Making: The Establishment Clause Cases, 1970–1986.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Johnson, Charles A. 1987. “Law, Politics, and Judicial Decision Making: Lower Federal Court Uses of Supreme Court Decisions.” Law and Society Review 21:325–40.10.2307/3053525Google Scholar
Johnson, Charles A., and Canon, Bradley C.. 1984. Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Kort, Fred. 1957. “Predicting Supreme Court Cases Mathematically: Analysis of the Right to Counsel Cases.” American Political Science Review 57:1–12.10.2307/1951767Google Scholar
Kort, Fred. 1973. “Regression Analysis and Discriminant Analysis: An Application of R. A. Fisher's Theorem to Data in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 67:555–59.10.2307/1958783Google Scholar
Kurland, Philip. 1972. “1971 Term: The Year of the Stewart-White Court.” In 1972 Supreme Court Review. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levi, Edward. 1949. An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lewis v. Jeffers. 1990. 110 S. Ct. 3092.10.1016/S0161-6420(90)32644-1Google Scholar
Llewellyn, Karl N. 1951. The Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study. Rev. ed. New York: Oceana.Google Scholar
Lockett v. Ohio. 1978. 438 U.S. 586.Google Scholar
McKoy v. North Carolina. 1990. 110 S. Ct. 1227.Google Scholar
Marra, Robin F., Ostrom, Charles W. Jr.,, and Simon, Dennis M.. 1990. “Foreign Policy and Presidential Popularity.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 34:588–623.10.1177/0022002790034004002Google Scholar
Marshall, Thomas R. 1989. Public Opinion and the Supreme Court. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Muller v. Oregon. 1908. 208 U.S. 412.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, Stuart S. 1969. The Legal Process from a Behavioral Perspective. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen. 1980. Women's Organizations' Use of the Court. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
O'Neill, Timothy J. 1981. “The Language of Equality in a Democratic Order.” American Political Science Review 75:626–35.10.2307/1960957Google Scholar
Ostrom, Charles W. Jr.,, and Job, Brian L.. 1986. “The President and the Political Use of Force.” American Political Science Review 80:541–66.10.2307/1958273Google Scholar
Palmer, Jan. 1982. “An Econometric Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions.” Public Choice 39:387–98.10.1007/BF00118795Google Scholar
Posner, Richard. 1981. “The Present Situation in Legal Scholarship.” Yale Law Journal 90:1113–30.10.2307/795943Google Scholar
Pound, Roscoe. 1931. “The Call for a Realist Jurisprudence.” Harvard Law Review 44:697–711.10.2307/1331791Google Scholar
Pound, Roscoe. 1959. Jurisprudence. St. Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
Pritchett, C. Herman. 1948. The Roosevelt Court: A Study of Judicial Values and Votes, 1937–48. New York: Macmillan.10.2307/1284324Google Scholar
Pritchett, C. Herman. 1969. “The Development of Judicial Research.” In Frontiers of Judicial Research, ed. Grossman, Joel B. and Tanenhaus, Joseph. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Roberts (H.) v. Louisiana. 1977. 431 U.S. 633.10.2307/960276Google Scholar
Rohde, David W., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon. 1954. Quantitative Analysis of Judicial Behavior. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Herman. 1988. Packing the Courts. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
Scigliano, Robert. 1971. The Supreme Court and the Presidency. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1984. “Predicting Supreme Court Cases Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases, 1962–1984.” American Political Science Review 78:891–900.10.2307/1955796Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1986. “Supreme Court Justices as Human Decision Makers: An Individual-level Analysis of the Search and Seizure Cases.” Journal of Politics 48:938–55.10.2307/2131006Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1991. “Courts, Executives, and Legislatures.” In The American Courts, ed. Gates, John B. and Johnson, Charles A.. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cover, Albert D.. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83:557–65.10.2307/1962405Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 1972. “Toward a Theory of Stare Decisis.” Journal of Legal Studies 1:125–34.10.1086/467480Google Scholar
Slotnick, Elliot E. 1989. “Theme Paper on the Judiciary.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
South Carolina v. Gathers. 1989. 109 S. Ct. 2207.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. 1961. “An Approach to the Study of Attitudinal Differences as an Aspect of Judicial Behavior.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 6:54–82.10.2307/2109094Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. 1979. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Stumpf, Harry P. 1988. American Judicial Politics. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Janovich.Google Scholar
Tate, C. Neal. 1981. “Personal Attribute Models of Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economic Decisions, 1946–1978.” American Political Science Review 75:355–67.10.2307/1961370Google Scholar
Tate, C. Neal, and Handberg, Roger. 1991. “Time Binding and Theory Building in Personal Attribute Models of Supreme Court Voting Behavior, 1916–1988.” American Journal of Political Science 35:460–81.10.2307/2111371Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1960. “The Analysis of Behavior Patterns in the Supreme Court of the United States.” Journal of Politics 22:429–47.10.2307/2126926Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1986. “Are Social Background Models Time Bound?” American Political Science Review 80:957–67.10.2307/1960547Google Scholar
Vidmar, Neil, and Ellsworth, Phoebe. 1974. “Public Opinion and the Death Penalty.” Stanford Law Review 26:1245–70.10.2307/1227989Google Scholar
Vose, Clement E. 1959. Caucasians Only. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520325647Google Scholar
Wasby, Stephen L. 1988. The Supreme Court in the Federal Judicial System. Nelson Hall.Google Scholar
Whitebread, Charles H., and Slobogin, Christopher. 1986. Criminal Procedure. Mineola, NY: Foundation.Google Scholar
Witherspoon v. Illinois. 1968. 391 U.S. 510.Google Scholar
Wolpert, Robin M. 1991. “Explaining and Predicting Supreme Court Decision-Making: The Gender Discrimination Cases, 1971–1987.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Woodson v. North Carolina. 1976. 428 U.S. 280.Google Scholar
Zimring, Franklin E., and Hawkins, Gordon. 1986. Capital Punishment and the American Agenda. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.