Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:14:57.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection of Cases for Discussion

The US Supreme Court, October Term 1939, 1968, and 1982

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Gregory A. Caldeira  and
Daniel Lempert
Gregory A. Caldeira*
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Daniel Lempert
Affiliation:
SUNY Potsdam
*
Contact the corresponding author, Gregory A. Caldeira, at [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The first, hidden stage of the Supreme Court’s agenda-setting process is the formation of the “discuss list,” the small set of cases actually considered in conference. Yet few have systematically considered the operation of and the influences on this critical initial phase of decision making. No systematic, empirical work makes comparisons over time of how features of cases shape the makeup of the chief justice’s discuss list. Here, we examine the composition of the discuss list through a multivariate analysis of all paid petitions for certiorari filed in October Term 1939, 1968, and 1982. We are thereby able to compare the tendencies and efficacy of three long-serving chief justices—Hughes, Warren, and Burger—in making up the discuss list. And, methodologically, we present an alternative to the “observed-value” and the “representative-case” methods of calculating effect sizes for second differences, with software to implement our proposal.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Fall 2020 , pp. 381 - 395
Copyright
© 2020 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.)

Footnotes

We appreciate helpful discussions with Larry Baum, Jeff Budziak, Rob Hinckley, Matt Hitt, Kyle Kopko, and Steven Nawara and useful comments from Kevin McGuire and two anonymous reviewers. A version of this article was presented at the 2018 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, where Doug Rice and other panelists and audience members provided valuable feedback. We thank Audra J. Smith for excellent research assistance. For use of data for OT 1968 and OT 1982, we thank John Wright and Christopher Zorn.

References

Belknap, Michael R. 2007. The Supreme Court under Earl Warren, 1953–1969. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C., and Boyd, Christina L. 2013. “Selecting the Select Few: The Discuss List and the US Supreme Court’s Agenda-Setting Process.” Social Science Quarterly 94 (4): 1124–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boskey, Bennett. 1946. “The Supreme Court’s ‘Miscellaneous’ Docket.” Harvard Law Review 59 (4): 604–6.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Lempert, Daniel. 2017. “Agenda Control in the Hughes Court, OT 1939.” Paper presented at 2017 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R. 1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting at the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 82 (4): 1109–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R. 1990. “The Discuss List: Agenda Building in the Supreme Court.” Law and Society Review 24 (3): 807–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., Wright, John R., and Zorn, Christopher J. 1997. “Sophisticated Judicial Behavior: Agenda-Setting via the Discuss List.” Paper presented at the 1997 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., Wright, John R., and Zorn, Christopher J. 1999. “Sophisticated Voting and Gate-Keeping in the Supreme Court.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 15 (3): 549–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Charles M., and Clark, Tom. 2016. “The Chief Justice and Procedural Power.” In The Chief Justice: Appointment and Influence, ed. Ward, Artemus and Danelski, David J., 202–34. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Caplan, Lincoln. 1988. The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the Rule of Law. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Cordray, Margaret Meriwether, and Cordray, Richard. 2010. “The Solicitor General’s Changing Role in Supreme Court Litigation.” Boston College Law Review 51 (5): 1323–82.Google Scholar
Coveney, Joseph. 2015. “FIRTHLOGIT: Stata Module to Calculate Bias Reduction in Logistic Regression.” Statistical Software Components S456948, Boston College Department of Economics, revised July 25.Google Scholar
Cross, Frank B., and Lindquist, Stefanie. 2006. “Doctrinal and Strategic Influences of the Chief Justice.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154 (6): 1665–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danelski, David J. 2016. “The Influence of the Chief Justice in the Decisional Process of the Supreme Court.” In The Chief Justice: Appointment and Influence, ed. Ward, Artemus and Danelski, David J., 19–46. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Posner, Eric A. 2018. “The Decline of Supreme Court Deference to the President.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 166 (4): 829–60.Google Scholar
Firth, David. 1993. “Bias Reduction of Maximum Likelihood Estimates.” Biometrika 80 (1): 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Joel K. 2011. “Leading the Court: Studies in Influence as Chief Justice.” Stetson Law Review 40 (3): 717–62.Google Scholar
Hanmer, Michael J., and Ozan Kalkan, Kerem. 2013. “Behind the Curve: Clarifying the Best Approach to Calculating Predicted Probabilities and Marginal Effects from Limited Dependent Variable Models.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (1): 263–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartnett, Edward A. 2000. “Questioning Certiorari: Some Reflections Seventy-Five Years after the Judges’ Bill.” Columbia Law Review 100 (7): 1643–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Benjamin. 2018. “The Supreme Court’s Political Docket: How Ideology and the Chief Justice Control the Court’s Agenda and Shape Law.” Connecticut Law Review 50 (1): 581–640.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy, Spriggs, James F., and Wahlbeck, Paul J. 2005. “Passing and Strategic Voting on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Law and Society Review 39 (2): 349–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, J. Scott, and Mustillo, Sarah A. 2019. “Using Predictions and Marginal Effects to Compare Groups in Regression Models for Binary Outcomes.” Sociological Methods and Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElwain, Edwin. 1949. “The Business of the Supreme Court as Conducted by Chief Justice Hughes.” Harvard Law Review 63 (1): 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NYU Law Review Supreme Court Project. 1984a. Appendices. New York University Law Review 59 (6): 1406–929.Google Scholar
NYU Law Review Supreme Court Project. 1984b. “Appendix B.” New York University Law Review 59 (5): 823–1004.Google Scholar
Peppers, Todd. 2006. Courtiers of the Marble Palace. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law and Politics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, H. W. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Provine, Doris Marie. 1980. Case Selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rainey, Carlisle. 2016. “Compression and Conditional Effects: A Product Term Is Essential When Using Logistic Regression to Test for Interaction.” Political Science Research and Methods 4 (3): 621–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, Reynolds, and Kirkham, Francis. 1936. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States. St. Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
Ross, William G. 2007. The Chief Justiceship of Charles Evans Hughes, 1930–1941. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Ruger, Theodore W. 2006. “The Chief Justice’s Special Authority and the Norms of Judicial Power.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154 (6): 1551–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Bernard G. 1983. Super Chief: Earl Warren and His Court. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Bernard G. 1990. The Ascent of Pragmatism: The Burger Court in Action. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. 2007. “The Judicial Research Initiative—United States Supreme Court Judicial Databases.” University of South Carolina, Department of Political Science. http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/poli/juri/burger_codebook.pdf.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J., Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey A., Ruger, Ted, Martin, Andrew D., and Benesh, Sarah. 2017. The Supreme Court Database. http://scdb.wustl.edu.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert L. 1953. “Denial of Certiorari despite a Conflict.” Harvard Law Review 66 (3): 465–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, Robert L., and Gressman, Eugene. 1950. Supreme Court Practice. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.Google Scholar
Stevens, John Paul. 1983. “The Life Span of a Judge-Made Rule.” New York University Law Review 58 (1): 1–21.Google Scholar
Urofsky, Melvin J. 1999. Division and Discord: The Supreme Court under Stone and Vinson, 1941–1953. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Ward, Artemus, and Weiden, David L. 2007. Sorcerers’ Apprentices: 100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States Supreme Court. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, Bob, and Armstrong, Scott. 1979. The Brethren. New York: Avon.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Caldeira and Lempert supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 276 KB