Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T13:56:15.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Justice-level heterogeneity in certiorari voting: US Supreme Court October terms 1939, 1968, and 1982

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2021

Gregory A. Caldeira  and
Daniel Lempert Open the ORCID record for Daniel Lempert [Opens in a new window]
Gregory A. Caldeira
Affiliation:
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
Daniel Lempert*
Affiliation:
SUNY Potsdam, Potsdam, NY, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although the literature on US Supreme Court agenda-setting is sizable, justice-vote-level multivariate analyses of certiorari are almost exclusively limited to samples of discussed cases from 1986 to 1993. Moreover, these studies have done very little to explore justice-level heterogeneity on certiorari. Here, we address these lacunae by analyzing the predictors of individual justices’ cert votes on all paid cases from the 1939, 1968, and 1982 terms. We find substantial justice-level heterogeneity in the weight that justices place on the standard set of forces shaping the cert vote. We also show that some of this heterogeneity is associated with justices’ experience and ideological extremism, largely in theoretically predicted ways. In closing, we sound a note of caution on drawing conclusions about effects of justice attributes, when the number of justices is relatively small.

Keywords

American politicsjudicial politics
Type
Original Article
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , October 2022 , pp. 793 - 805
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Political Science Association

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

Armstrong, VC and Johnson, CA (1982) Certiorari decisions by the Warren & Burger Courts: is cue theory time bound?. Polity 15, 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, BL (2011) Choices in context: how case-level factors influence the magnitude of ideological voting on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Politics Research 39, 142–175.10.1177/1532673X10378633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benesh, SC, Armstrong II, DA and Wallander, Z (2020) Advisors to elites: untangling their effect. Journal of Law and Courts 8.10.1086/704740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, WD, DeMeritt, JHR and Esarey, J (2010) Testing for interactions in binary logit and probit models: is a product term essential?. American Journal of Political Science 54, 248–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, RC and Boyd, CL (2012a) The role of law clerks in the U.S. Supreme Court's agenda-setting process. American Politics Research 40, 147–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, RC and Boyd, CL (2012b) U.S. Supreme Court agenda setting and the role of litigant status. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 28, 286–312.10.1093/jleo/ewq002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, RC and Owens, RJ (2009) Agenda setting in the Supreme Court: the collision of policy and jurisprudence. Journal of Politics 71, 1062–1075.10.1017/S0022381609090884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, RC and Owens, RJ (2012) Consider the source (and the message) Supreme Court justices and strategic audits of lower court decisions. Political Research Quarterly 65, 385–395.10.1177/1065912910395324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broyde, MJ (1987) The intercircuit tribunal and perceived conflicts: an analysis of Justice White's dissents from denial of certiorari during the 1985 term. NYU Law Review 62, 610–651.Google Scholar
Budziak, J and Lempert, D (2018) Assessing threats to inference with simultaneous sensitivity analysis: the case of U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments. Political Science Research and Methods 6, 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, GA and Lempert, D (2017) Agenda control in the Hughes Court, OT 1939. Presented at 2017 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Caldeira, GA and Lempert, D (2020) Selection of cases for discussion: the U.S. Supreme Court, OT 1939, 1968, and 1982. Journal of Law and Courts 8, 381–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, GA and Wright, JR (1988) Organized interests and agenda setting at the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 82, 1109–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, GA and Wright, JR (1990) The discuss list: agenda building in the Supreme Court. Law and Society Review 24, 807–836.10.2307/3053860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, GA, Wright, JR and Zorn, CJW (1999) Sophisticated voting and gate-keeping in the Supreme Court. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 15, 549–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, AC, Gelbach, JB and Miller, DL (2011) Robust inference with multiway clustering. Journal of Economic and Business Statistics 29, 238–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, PM (2008a) Amici curiae and dissensus on the U.S. Supreme Court. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 5, 143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, PM (2008b) The consistency of judicial choice. Journal of Politics 70, 861–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordray, R and Meriwether Cordray, M (2004) The philosophy of certiorari: jurisprudential considerations in Supreme Court case selection. Washington University Law Quarterly 82, 389–452.Google Scholar
Enns, PK and Wohlfarth, PC (2013) The swing justice. Journal of Politics 75, 1089–1107.10.1017/S0022381613001035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, L, Segal, JA and Spaeth, HJ (2007) The Digital Archive of the Papers of Justice Harry A. Blackmun. Available at: http://epstein.wustl.edu/blackmun.php.Google Scholar
Feller, A and Holmes, CC (2009) Beyond Toplines: Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in Randomized Experiments. Downloaded from: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/gelman/stuff_for_blog/feller.pdf.Google Scholar
Gu, A and Yoo, HI (2019) vcemway: a one-stop solution for robust inference with multiway clustering. The Stata Journal 19, 900–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurwitz, MS and Stefko, JV (2004) Acclimation and attitudes: newcomer justices and precedent conformance on the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly 57, 121–129.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, D (1998) The Man Who Once Was Whizzer White. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Iman, RL and Conover, WJ (1979) The use of the rank transform in regression. Technometrics 21, 499–509.10.1080/00401706.1979.10489820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, RH (1955) The Supreme Court in the American System of Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, B (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, 581–640.Google Scholar
Johnson, T, Wahlbeck, PJ and Spriggs, JF (2006) The influence of oral arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 100, 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P (2003) A Guide to Econometrics. 5th ed., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lam, P (2013) A Framework for Estimating Individual Causal Effects. Downloaded from: http://patricklam.org/publication/dissertation/intro.pdf.Google Scholar
Lane, EA and Black, RC (2017) Agenda setting and case selection on the U.S. Supreme Court. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia Of Politics (Online). Doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, SA and Klein, DE (2006) The influence of jurisprudential considerations on Supreme Court decisionmaking: a study of conflict cases. Law & Society Review 40, 135–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, AD and Quinn, KM (2002) Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the US Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis 10, 134–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, KT and Caldeira, GA (1993) Lawyers, organized interests, and the law of obscenity: agenda setting in the Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 87, 717–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NYU Law Review Supreme Court Project (1984a) Appendices. New York University Law Review 59, 1406–1929.Google Scholar
NYU Law Review Supreme Court Project (1984b) Appendix B. New York University Law Review 59, 823–1004.Google Scholar
Perry, HW (1991) Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rainey, C (2016) Compression and conditional effects: a product term is essential when using logistic regression to test for interaction. Political Science Research and Methods 4, 621–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, R and Kirkham, F (1936) Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States. St Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing.Google Scholar
Schoenherr, JA and Black, RC (2019) Friends with benefits: case significance, Amicus Curiae, and agenda setting on the U.S. Supreme Court. International Review of Law and Economics 58, 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, JA and Spaeth, HJ (1996) The influence of stare decisis on the votes of United States Supreme Court Justices. American Journal of Political Science 40, 971–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, SM, Geller, KS, Bishop, TS, Hartnett, EA and Himmelfarb, D (2019) Supreme Court Practice. 11th ed., New York: Bloomberg BNA.Google Scholar
Snyder, EC (1958) The Supreme Court as a small group. Social Forces 36, 232–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, HJ (2001) The Vinson-Warren Supreme Court Judicial Database Documentation. Available at: http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/poli/juri/vinwar_codebook.pdf.Google Scholar
Stern, RL and Gressman, E (1950) Supreme Court Practice. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.Google Scholar
Sullivan, JT (2002) Justice White's principled passion for consistency. Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 4, 79–87.Google Scholar
Ulmer, SS (1984) The Supreme Court's certiorari decisions: conflict as a predictive variable. American Political Science Review 78, 901–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedeking, J (2012) Why do policy-motivated justices conform to unfavorable precedents? The role of social-legal backgrounds and precedential characteristics. Justice System Journal 33, 69–95.Google Scholar
Wolfman, B, Silver, JL and Silver, MA (1973) Behavior of Justice Douglas in federal tax cases. Pennsylvania Law Review 122, 235–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Caldeira and Lempert Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QPPL9H
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Caldeira and Lempert supplementary material

Figures S2-S7 and Tables S4-S5

Download Caldeira and Lempert supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 741.7 KB