Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:57:28.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linking Issues to Ideology in the Supreme Court

The Takings Clause

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Lawrence Baum
Lawrence Baum*
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article probes explanations for the linkages between Supreme Court justices’ broad ideological stances and their positions in specific issue areas. The justices’ votes in decisions on the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment showed no consistent ideological pattern in the 1937–79 terms but have fallen along clear ideological lines since then. Analysis of relevant evidence indicates that this shift reflected both changes in the content of takings cases and changes in the lineup of political and social groups on takings issues. The shift and its sources suggest a need to rethink the role of the justices’ policy preferences in shaping their choices.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , Spring 2013 , pp. 89 - 114
Copyright
© 2013 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

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

Bailey, Michael A., and Forrest Maltzman. 2011. The Constrained Court: Law, Politics, and the Decisions Justices Make. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Barros, D. Benjamin. 2008. “Nothing ‘Errant’ about It: The Berman and Midkiff Conference Notes and How the Supreme Court Got to Kelo with Its Eyes Wide Open.” In Private Property, Community Development, and Eminent Domain. ed. Malloy, Robin Paul 57–74. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Benedict, Jeff. 2009. Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage. New York: Grand Central.Google Scholar
Berger, Lawrence. 1995. “Public Use, Substantive Due Process and Takings—an Integration.” Nebraska Law Review 74 (4): 843–85.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E.. Miller, Warren E.. and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cohen, Geoffrey L. 2003. “Party over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (5): 808–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Congressional Research Service. 2004. The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Congressional Research Service. 2010. The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation; 2010 Supplement. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Conover, Pamela Johnston. 1984. “The Influence of Group Identifications on Political Perception and Evaluation.” Journal of Politics 46 (3): 760–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, Pamela Johnston. 1988. “The Role of Social Groups in Political Thinking.” British Journal of Political Science 19 (1): 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent. ed. Apter, David E.. 206–61. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Devine, Christopher John. 2011. “Ideological Social Identity: How Psychological Attachment to Ideological Groups Shapes Political Attitudes and Behaviors.” PhD diss., Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Ducat, Craig R., and Dudley, Robert L.. 1987. “Dimensions Underlying Economic Policymaking in the Early and Later Burger Courts.” Journal of Politics 49 (2): 521–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Echeverria, John D. 1997. “The Politics of Property Rights.” Oklahoma Law Review 50 (3): 351–75.Google Scholar
Ely, James W. Jr.. 1996. “The Fuller Court and Takings Jurisprudence.” Journal of Supreme Court History 2:120–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Martin, Andrew D.. Quinn, Kevin M.. and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 2007. “Ideological Drift among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important?” Northwestern University Law Review 101 (4): 1483–1541.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 2000. “Measuring Issue Salience.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 66–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 2006. “Trumping the First Amendment.” Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 21:81–121.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey A.. Spaeth, Harold J.. and Walker, Thomas G.. 2007. The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions and Developments. 4th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard A. 1985. Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fischel, William A. 1995. Regulatory Takings: Law, Economics, and Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gaba, Jeffrey M. 2007. “Taking ‘Justice and Fairness’ Seriously: Distributive Justice and the Takings Clause.” Creighton Law Review 40 (3): 569–94.Google Scholar
George, Tracey E. 2008. “From Judge to Justice: Social Background Theory and the Supreme Court.” North Carolina Law Review 86 (5): 1333–67.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 1997. “Ideology: A Definitional Analysis.” Political Research Quarterly 50 (4): 957–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 1993. The Constitution Besieged: The Rise and Demise of Lochner Era Police Powers Jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Graber, Mark A. 1991. Transforming Free Speech: The Ambiguous Legacy of Civil Libertarianism. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, J. Tobin, and Rudolph, Thomas J.. 2003. “Value Conflict, Group Affect, and the Issue of Campaign Finance.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (3): 453–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhouse, Linda. 2005. Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun’s Supreme Court Journey. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, and Brazill, Timothy J.. 2002. “Identifying the Median Justice on the Supreme Court through Multidimensional Scaling: Analysis of ‘Natural Courts’ 1953–1991.” Public Choice 112:55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagle, Timothy M., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1993. “Ideological Patterns in the Justices’ Voting in the Burger Court’s Business Cases.” Journal of Politics 55 (2): 492–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, Daniel E., and Quinn, Kevin M.. 2010. “How Not to Lie with Judicial Votes: Misconceptions, Measurement, and Models.” California Law Review 98 (3): 813–76.Google Scholar
Jelen, Ted G. 1993. “The Political Consequences of Religious Group Attitudes.” Journal of Politics 55 (1): 178–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, M. Kent. 1992. “Ideological Thinking among Mass Publics and Political Elites.” Public Opinion Quarterly 56 (4): 419–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, John T. 2006. “The End of the End of Ideology.” American Psychologist 61 (7): 651–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jost, John T., Federico, Christopher M.. and Napier, Jaime L.. 2009. “Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities.” Annual Review of Psychology 60:307–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahn, Ronald. 2006. “Social Constructions, Supreme Court Reversals, and American Political Development: Lochner. Plessy, Bowers, but Not Roe.” In The Supreme Court and American Political Development, ed. Ronald Kahn and Kersch, Ken I.. 67–113. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Kearney, Joseph D., and Merrill, Thomas W.. 2000. “The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148 (3): 743–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, Douglas T., and Lord, Charles P.. 1998. “The Takings Project: A Critical Analysis and Assessment of the Progress So Far.” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 25 (3): 509–88.Google Scholar
Kersch, Ken I. 2004. Constructing Civil Liberties: Discontinuities in the Development of American Constitutional Law. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraft, Michael E., and Vig, Norman J.. 2000. “Environmental Policy from the 1970s to 2000: An Overview.” In Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century. 4th ed., ed. Norman J. Vig and Kraft, Michael E.. 1–31. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. 1978. “Ideology and American Political Elites.” Public Opinion Quarterly 42 (4): 484–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., Metlay, Daniel S.. and W. D. Kay. 1982. “Citizen Knowledge and Choices on the Complex Issue of Nuclear Energy.” American Journal of Political Science 26 (4): 615–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, Amy. 2010. “Urban Renewal and the Story of Berman v. Parker.” Urban Lawyer 42 (2): 423–75.Google Scholar
Lazarus, Richard J. 1997. “Counting Votes and Discounting Holdings in the Supreme Court’s Takings Cases.” William and Mary Law Review 38 (3): 1099–1141.Google Scholar
Leavitt, Donald Carl. 1970. “Attitudes and Ideology on the White Supreme Court, 1910–1920.” PhD diss., Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Jacoby, William G.. Helmut Norpoth, and Weisberg, Herbert F.. 2008. The American Voter Revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., and Quinn, Kevin M.. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10 (2): 134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marzulla, Nancie G. 1995. “The Property Rights Movement: How It Began and Where It Is Headed.” In Land Rights: The 1990s’ Property Rights Rebellion. ed. Bruce Yandle, 1–30. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
McClosky, Herbert. 1964. “Consensus and Ideology in American Politics.” American Political Science Review 58 (2): 361–82.Google Scholar
McClosky, Herbert, and John Zaller. 1984. The American Ethos: Public Attitudes toward Capitalism and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Meltz, Robert. 1991. When the United States Takes Property: Legal Principles. Rev. ed. Report 91-339A. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Meltz, Robert. 1995. The Property Rights Issue. Report 95-200A. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Meltz, Robert. 2005. Takings Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court: A Chronology. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Meltz, Robert, Merriam, Dwight H.. and Frank, Richard M.. 1999. The Takings Issue: Constitutional Limits on Land Use Control and Environmental Regulation. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Nadler, Janice, and Shari Seidman Diamond. 2008. “Eminent Domain and the Psychology of Property Rights: Proposed Use, Subjective Attachment, and Taker Identity.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 5 (4): 713–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E. 1999. “Group Affect and Attribution in Social Policy Opinion.” Journal of Politics 61 (2): 331–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., and Kinder, Donald R.. 1996. “Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion.” Journal of Politics 58 (4): 1055–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noel, Hans. 2012. “The Coalition Merchants: The Ideological Roots of the Civil Rights Realignment.” Journal of Politics 74 (1): 157–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivetti, Alfred M. Jr., and Jeff Worsham. 2003. This Land Is Your Land, This Land Is My Land: The Property Rights Movement and Regulatory Takings. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.Google Scholar
Peffley, Mark, and Jon Hurwitz. 1993. “Models of Attitude Constraint in Foreign Affairs.” Political Behavior 15 (1): 61–90.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Howard Rosenthal. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll-Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pralle, Sarah, and McCann, Michael W.. 2000. “New Property Rights Debates: The Dialectics of Naming, Blaming, and Claiming.” In Land in the American West: Private Claims and the Common Good. ed. William G. Robbins and Foster, James C.. 53–74. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Rabban, David M. 1997. Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Rokeach, Milton. 1968. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Rose, Carol M. 1984. “Mahon Reconstructed: Why the Takings Issue Is Still a Muddle.” Southern California Law Review 57 (4): 561–99.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Jeanne L. 1996. “Never Jam To-day: On the Impossibility of Takings Jurisprudence.” Georgetown Law Journal 84 (5): 1531–69.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon. 1965. The Judicial Mind: Attitudes and Ideologies of Supreme Court Justices, 1946–1963. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Schultz, David. 2010. Evicted! Property Rights and Eminent Domain in America. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Shalom. 1996. “Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems.” In The Psychology of Values. ed. Clive Seligman, Olson, James M.. and Zanna, Mark P.. 1–24. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Snyder, Eloise C. 1958. “The Supreme Court as a Small Group.” Social Forces 36 (3): 232–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southworth, Ann. 2008.Lawyers of the Right: Professionalizing the Conservative Coalition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J., Meltz, David B., Rathjen, Gregory J., and Haselswerdt, Michael V.. 1972. “Is Justice Blind: An Empirical Investigation of a Normative Ideal.” Law and Society Review 7 (1): 119–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J., and Parker, Douglas R.. 1969. “Effects of Attitude toward Situation upon Attitude toward Object.” Journal of Psychology 73 (2): 173–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, John Paul. 2011. “Kelo, Popularity, and Substantive Due Process.” Albritton Lecture, University of Alabama School of Law, November 16, http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/speeches.aspx.Google Scholar
Sturgis, Patrick, Caroline Roberts, and Nick Allum. 2005. “A Different Take on the Deliberative Poll: Information, Deliberation, and Attitude Constraint.” Public Opinion Quarterly 69 (1): 30–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, John L., James Piereson, and Marcus, George E.. 1982. Political Tolerance and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tedin, Kent. 1987. “Political Ideology and the Vote.” Research in Micropolitics 2:63–94.Google Scholar
Teles, Steven M. 2008. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorpe, Rebecca U., Evans, Michael C., Simon, Stephen A., and McIntosh, Wayne V.. 2010. “Legal Mobilization and US Supreme Court Decision Making in Property and Civil Rights Cases, 1978–2003.” In Property Rights and Neoliberalism: Cultural Demands and Legal Actions. ed. Wayne V. McIntosh and Hatcher, Laura J., 29–58. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, William R. 2010. “Kelo v. New London. the Institute for Justice, and the Idea of Economic Development Takings.” In Property Rights and Neoliberalism: Cultural Demands and Legal Actions, ed. Wayne V. McIntosh and Hatcher, Laura J., 59–74. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Wolf, Michael Allan. 2008. “Hysteria versus History: Public Use in the Public Eye.” In Private Property, Community Development, and Eminent Domain. ed. Robin Paul Malloy, 15–33. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar