Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T23:24:15.262Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Pendulum of Precedent: U.S. State Legislative Response to Supreme Court Decisions on Minimum Wage Legislation for Women

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Valerie Hoekstra
Valerie Hoekstra*
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The impact of U.S. Supreme Court decisions is contingent on the willingness of other political actors to implement those decisions. One important group of implementers is the U.S. state legislatures. However, in the pursuit of policy, state legislators must consider multiple goals when choosing among alternative policy options. In addition to considering the likelihood of review by state high courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, state legislators have their own ideas about good policy and must also face reelection. When are legislators likely to follow precedent and when are they likely to ignore it in pursuit of these other goals? In this article, I examine the enactment of state minimum wage legislation for women in the first half of the twentieth century. The results show that even after controlling for legislative and constituent preferences, legislators heed the preferences of the U.S. Supreme Court—but not necessarily their own high courts—when deciding to pass minimum wage legislation. The results point to the need for scholars of state politics to pay greater attention to the role of judicial actors when studying policy adoption and legislative behavior.

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , Fall 2009 , pp. 257 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

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

Adkins v. Children's Hospital. 1923. 261 U.S. 525.Google Scholar
Arnold, Douglas R. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Atkins v. Kansas. 1903. 191 U.S. 207.Google Scholar
Baer, Judith. 1978. The Chains of Protection: The Judicial Response to Women's Labor Legislation. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Baltimore and Ohio Rail Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. 1911. 221 U.S. 612.Google Scholar
Barrilleaux, Charles, Holbrook, Thomas, and Langer, Laura. 2002. “Electoral Competition, Legislative Balance, and American State Welfare Policy.” American Journal of Political Science 46:415–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benesh, Sara C., and Reddick, Malia. 2002. “Overruled: An Event History Analysis of Lower Court Reaction to Supreme Court Alteration of Precedent.” The Journal of Politics 64:534–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benesh, Sara C., and Martinek, Wendy L.. 2002. “State Supreme Court Decisionmaking in Confession Cases.” Justice System Journal 23:109–33.Google Scholar
Berry, Frances Stokes. 1994. “Sizing Up State Policy Innovation Research.” Policy Studies Journal 3:442–56.Google Scholar
Berry, Frances Stokes, and Berry, William D.. 1990. “State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis.” American Political Science Review 84:395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosley v. McClaughlin. 1915. 236 U.S. 385.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Jones, Bradford S.. 2004. Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Zorn, Christopher J.W.. 2001. “Duration Models and Proportional Hazards in Political Science.” American Journal of Political Science 45:972–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, and Hall, Melinda Gann. 1990. “Neo-Institutionalism and Dissent in State Supreme Courts.” The Journal of Politics 52:55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, and Hall, Melinda Gann. 1997. “The Interplay of Preferences, Case Facts, Context, and Rules in the Politics of Judicial Choice.” The Journal of Politics 59:1206–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, Hall, Melinda Gann, and Langer, Laura. 1999. “Judicial Choices and the Politics of Abortion: Institutions, Context, and the Autonomy of Courts.” Albany Law Review 62:1265–1303.Google Scholar
Brandeis, Elizabeth. 1935. “Labor Legislation.” In History of Labor in the United States, 1896–1932, Vol. 4, ed. John R. Commons. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Brown v. Board of Education. 1954. 347 U.S. 483.Google Scholar
Bunting v. Oregon. 1917. 243 U.S. 426.Google Scholar
Charles Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations of the State of Kansas. 1923. 262 U.S. 522.Google Scholar
Cleves, Mario A., Gould, William W., Gutierrez, Roberto G., and Marchenko, Yulia U.. 2008. An Introduction to Survival Analysis Using Stata, 2nd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Comparato, Scott A., and McClurg, Scott D.. 2007. “A Neo-Institutional Explanation of State Responses in Search and Seizure Cases.” American Politics Research 35:726–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connally v. General Construction Co. 1925. 269 U.S. 385.Google Scholar
David, Paul T., and Eisenberg, Ralph. 1961. Devaluation of the Urban and Suburban Vote; A Statistical Investigation of Long-Term Trends in State Legislative Representation. Charlottesville, VA: Bureau of Public Administration, University of Virginia.Google Scholar
Dawson, Richard E., and Robinson, James A.. 1963. “Inter-Party Competition, Economic Variables, and Welfare Policies in the American States.” The Journal of Politics 25:265–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donham v. West-Nelson Manufacturing. 1927. 273 U.S. 657.Google Scholar
Ellis v. United States. 1907. 206 U.S. 246.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee. 1985. Conservatives in Court. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey A., Spaeth, Harold J., and Walker, Thomas G.. 1996. The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions, and Developments, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Walker, Thomas G.. 2007. Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Institutional Powers and Constraints, 7th edition. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1978. “Constituency Opinion and Congressional Behavior: A Reexamination of the Miller-Stokes Representation Data.” American Journal of Political Science 22:511–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1974. Representatives, Roll Calls, and Constituencies. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1989. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia. 1994. “Competition, Emulation, and Policy Innovation.” In New Perspectives in American Politics, eds. Dodd, Lawrence and Jillson, Calvin. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Gruhl, John. 1980. “The Supreme Court's Impact on the Law of Libel: Compliance by Lower Federal Courts.” Western Political Quarterly 33:502–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawley v. Walker. 1914. 232. U.S. 718.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Valerie J. 2005. “Competing Constraints: State Court Responses to Supreme Court Decisions and Legislation on Wages and Hours.” Political Research Quarterly 58:317–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofferbert, Richard I. N.d. Socio-economic, Public Policy, and Political Data for the United States: 1890–1960. [computer file]. Conducted by Cornell University Center for International Studies. ICPSR, ed. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas M., and Dunk, Emily Van. 1993. “Electoral Competition in the American States.” American Political Science Review 87:955–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holden v. Hardy. 1898. 169 U.S. 366Google Scholar
Howell, William, Adler, Scott, Cameron, Charles, and Riemann, Charles. 2000. “Divided Government and the Legislative Productivity of Congress, 1945–1994.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25:285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, John E., and King, David C.. 1989. “Public Goods, Private Interests, and Representation.” American Political Science Review 83:1145–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Sean Q. 1993. “Divided We Govern: A Reassessment.” Polity 25:475–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1977. “Models of Legislative Voting.” The Journal of Politics 39:563–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1989. Congressmen's Voting Decisions. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, Laura, and Brace, Paul. 2005. “The Preemptive Power of State Supreme Courts: Adoption of Abortion and Death Penalty Legislation.” Policy Studies Journal 33:317–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, Susan. 1987. Origins of Protective Labor Legislation for Women, 1905–1925. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Lochner v. New York. 1905. 198 U.S. 45.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew D. 1998. Strategic Decisionmaking and the Separation of Powers. Ph.D. dissertation, Washington University in St. Louis.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1991. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946–1990. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Miller v. Wilson. 1915. 236 U.S. 373.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57:45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo. 1936. 298 U.S. 587.Google Scholar
Muller v. Oregon. 1908. 208. U.S. 412.Google Scholar
Murphy v. Sardell. 1925. 269 U.S. 530.Google Scholar
Nathan, Maud. 1926. The Story of an Epoch-Making Movement. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, Page, and Company. Radice v. New York. 1924. 264 U.S. 292.Google Scholar
Ranney, Austin. 1976. “Parties in State Politics.” In Politics in the American States, eds. Jacob, Herbert and Vines, Kenneth. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Riley v. Massachusetts. 1914. 232. U.S. 671.Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade. 1973. 410 U.S. 113Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald N. 1991. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1991. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York, NY: Cambridge University Pres.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipan, Charles R. 1997. Designing Judicial Review: Interest Groups, Congress, and Communications Policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Shipan, Charles R. 2006. “Does Divided Government Increase the Size of the Legislative Agenda?” In The Macropolitics of Congress, eds. Adler, E. Scott and Lapinski, John S.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers. The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda, Abend-Wein, Marjorie, Howard, Christopher, and Lehmann, Susan Goodrich. 1993. “Women's Associations and the Enactment of Mothers' Pensions in the United States.” American Political Science Review 87:686–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Florence P. 1938. “State Labor Laws for Women” U.S. Department of Labor. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R. 1987. “The Impact of the Supreme Court on Trends in Economic Policy Making in the United States Courts of Appeals.” The Journal of Politics 49:830–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., and Sheehan, Reginald S.. 1990. “Supreme Court Impact on Compliance and Outcomes: Miranda and New York Times in the United States Courts of Appeals.” Western Political Quarterly 43:297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., and Haire, Susan. 1992. “Integrating Alternative Approaches to the Study of Judicial Voting: Obscenity Cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political Science 36:963–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cameron, Charles M.. 1994. “The Hierarchy of Justice: Testing a Principal-Agent model of Supreme Court-Circuit Court Interactions.” American Journal of Political Science 38:673–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stettler v. O'Hara. 1917. 243 U.S. 629.Google Scholar
Stone, Alec. 1992. The Birth of Judicial Politics in France. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thies, Clifford F. 1991. “The First Minimum Wage Laws.” Cato Journal 10:715–46.Google Scholar
Vanberg, Georg. 2001. “Legislative-Judicial Relations: A Game-Theoretic Approach to Constitutional Review.” American Journal of Political Science 45:346–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. 1937. 300 U.S. 379.Google Scholar
Wilson v. New. 1917. 243 U.S. 332.Google Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1969. “The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States.” American Political Science Review 63:880–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar