Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Does Legal Doctrine Matter? Unpacking Law and Policy Preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court

  • MICHAEL A. BAILEY (a1) and FORREST MALTZMAN (a2)
Abstract

Judicial scholars often struggle to disentangle the effects of law and policy preferences on U.S. Supreme Court decision making. We employ a new approach to measuring the effect—if any—of the law on justices' decisions. We use positions taken on Supreme Court cases by members of Congress and presidents to identify policy components of voting. Doing so enables us to isolate the effects of three legal doctrines: adherence to precedent, judicial restraint, and a strict interpretation of the First Amendment's protection of speech clause. We find considerable evidence that legal factors play an important role in Supreme Court decision making. We also find that the effect of legal factors varies across justices.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Michael A. Bailey is the Colonel William J. Walsh Associate Professor in the Department of Government and the Public Policy Institute at Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057. E-mail: baileyma@georgetown.edu.
Forrest Maltzman is Professor of Political Science at George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052. E-mail: forrest@gwu.edu.
References
Hide All
Abrams Floyd. 1997. “Look Who's Trashing the First Amendment.” Columbia Journalism Review 36 (November/December): 5358.
Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus. 1987. 482 U.S. 569.
Arnold Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bailey Michael A. 2007. “Comparable Preference Estimates Across Time and Institutions for the Court, Congress and Presidency.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (July): 3.
Barnes Robert. 2006. “New Justices Take to the Podium, Putting Personalities on Display.” Washington Post November 20, A15.
Baum Lawrence. 1994. “The Critics: The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model.” Law and Courts 4 (1). Washington, DC: American Political Science Association. www.law.nyu.edu/lawcourts/pubs/newsletter/spring94.pdf. (April 7, 2006).
Baum Lawrence. 1997. The Puzzle of Judicial Behavior. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Bawn Kathleen, and Shipan Charles R.. 1997. “Congressional Responses to Supreme Court Decisions: Imperfect Anticipation and Institutional Constraints.” University of California, Los Angeles. Manuscript.
Benesh Sara C., and Spaeth Harold J.. 2003. “The Supreme Court Justice-Centered Judicial Databases: The Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts.” www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/sctdata.htm. (March 30, 2007).
Bowers v. Hardwick. 1986. 478 U.S. 186.
Brenner Saul, and Stier Marc. 1996. “Retesting Segal and Spaeth's Stare Decisis Model.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 1036–48.
Breyer Stephen. 2005. Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution. New York: Knopf.
Buckley v. Valeo. 1976. 424 U.S. 1.
de Mesquita Bueno, Ethan, and Stephenson Matthew. 2002. “Informative Precedent and Intrajudicial Communication.” American Political Science Review 96 (4): 755–66.
Bush George W. 2002. “President Lauds Supreme Court School Choice Decision.” Office of Media Affairs, The White House: July 1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/release/2002/07/20020701-7.html (August 20, 2008).
Byrd Robert C. 1996. “Press Release: Opening the Door to Voluntary School Prayer.” http://byrd.senate.gov/speeches/2006_april/school_prayer.html. (November 20, 2007).
Clayton Cornell W. 1999. “The Supreme Court and Political Jurisprudence: New and Old Institutionalisms.” In Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches, Clayton ed. Cornell W., and Gillman Howard. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 15–42.
Clinton Joshua, Jackman Simon, and Rivers Douglas. 2004. “The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data.” American Political Science Review 98 (2): 355–70.
Cox Gary W., and McCubbins Mathew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dickerson v. U.S. 1999. 530 U.S. 428.
Dworkin Ronald. 1978. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Epstein Lee, Hoekstra Valerie, Segal Jeffrey A., and Spaeth Harold J.. 1998. “Do Political Preferences Change? A Longitudinal Study of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” Journal of Politics 60 (August): 801–18.
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): 1483–503.
Ferejohn John, and Kramer Larry D.. 2006. “Judicial Independence in a Democracy: Institutionalizing Judicial Restraint.” In Norms and the Law, Drobak ed. John N.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 161207.
Ferejohn John, and Shipan Charles. 1990. “Congressional Influence on Bureaucracy.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6 (Special Issue): 120.
Ferejohn John, and Weingast Barry. 1992. “A Positive Theory of Statutory Interpretation.” International Review of Law and Economics 12: 263–79.
Friedman Barry. 2006. “Taking Law Seriously.” Perspectives on Politics 4 (2): 261–76.
George Tracy E., and Epstein Lee. 1992. “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 86: 323–37.
Gewirtz Paul, and Golder Chad. 2005. “So Who Are the Activists?” New York Times July 6, A23.
Gibson James L. 1997. United States Supreme Court Judicial Data Base, Phase II. New York: Peter Lang.
Gilman Howard. 1999. “The Court as an Idea, Not a Building (or a Game): Interpretative Institutionalism and the Analysis of Supreme Court Decision-Making.” In Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches, ed. Clayton Cornell W. and Gillman Howard. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Ginzburg v. United States. 1966. 383 U.S. 463.
Goldstein Thomas C. 2007. “Justice Thomas: Constitutional ‘Stare Indecisis.’” First Amendment Center on Line: Symposium on Justice Thomas and the First Amendment. www.firstamendmentceter.org/analysis.aspx?id=19133. (November 26, 2007).
Greene William. 2000. Econometric Analysis. 3rd ed. New York: Prentice Hall.
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: 492505.
Hansford Thomas, and Spriggs James. 2006. The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Harris v. McRae. 1980. 448 U.S. 297.
Harvey Anna, and Friedman Barry. 2006. “Pulling Punches: Constitutional Decisions in the U.S. Supreme Court, 1987–2000.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 31 (4): 533–62.
Howard Robert, and Segal Jeffrey A.. 2004. “A Preference for Deference? The Supreme Court and Judicial Review.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (1): 131–43.
Howard Robert M., and Segal Jeffrey A.. 2002. “An Original Look at Originalism.” Law and Society Review 36 (1): 113–38.
Kahn Ronald. 1999. “Institutionalized Norms and Supreme Court Decision-Making: The Rehnquist Court on Privacy and Religion.” In Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches, Clayton ed. Cornell W., and Gillman Howard Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 175–98.
Knight Jack, and Epstein Lee. 1996. “The Norm of Stare Decisis.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 1018–35.
Lawrence v. Texas. 2003. 539 U.S. 558.
Lee v. Weisman. 1992. 505 U.S. 577.
Levi Edward. 1949. An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lindquist Stefanie A., and Klein David E.. 2006. “The Influence of Jurisprudential Considerations on Supreme Court Decisionmaking: A Study of Conflict Cases.” Law and Society Review 40 (1): 135–62.
Lindquist Stefanie A., and Solberg Rorie Spill. 2007. “Judicial Review by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (1): 7190.
Martin Andrew, and Quinn Kevin. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10 (Spring): 134–53.
Murphy Walter F. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Pinello Daniel R. 2003. Gay Rights and American Law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey. 1992. 505 U.S. 833.
Poole Keith, and Rosenthal Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Reynolds v. Sims. 1964. 377 U.S. 533.
Richards Mark J., and Kritzer Herbert. 2002.“Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 96 (2): 305–20.
Roe v. Wade. 1973. 410 U.S. 113.
Rohde David W., and Spaeth Harold J.. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Rosen Jeffrey. 2006. The Most Democratic Branch: How the Courts Serve America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rostker v. Goldberg. 1980. 453 U.S. 57.
Sala Brian R., and Spriggs James F. II. 2004. “Designing Tests of the Supreme Court and the Separation of Powers.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (2): 197208.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. 2000. 530 U.S. 290.
Segal Jeffrey A. 1997. “Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Law and Courts.” American Political Science Review 91: 2844.
Segal Jeffrey A., and Cover Albert. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83: 557–65.
Segal Jeffrey A., Epstein Lee, Cameron Charles M., and Spaeth Harold J.. 1995. “The Ideological Values and Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Revisited.” Journal of Politics 57: 812–23.
Segal Jeffrey A., and Howard Robert M.. 2001. “Litigant Requests to Overturn Precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court, 1985–1994.” Judicature 85: 148–57.
Segal Jeffrey A., and Spaeth Harold J.. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Segal Jeffrey A., and Spaeth Harold J.. 1996a. “The Influence of Stare Decisis on the Votes of the United States Supreme Court Justices.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (November): 9711003.
Segal Jeffrey A., and Spaeth Harold J.. 1996b. “Norms, Dragons, and Stare Decisis: A Response.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 1046–82.
Segal Jeffrey A., and Spaeth Harold J.. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Selective Services v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group. 1984. 468 U.S. 841.
Songer Donald, and Lindquist Stefanie. 1996. “Not the Whole Story: The Impact of Justices' Values on Supreme Court Decision-Making.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 1049–63.
Spaeth Harold J. 2006. “The Original U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Database.” www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/sctdata.htm. (May 21, 2007).
Spaeth Harold J., and Segal Jeffrey A.. 1999. Majority Rule or Minority Will: Adherence to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stevens John Paul. 2005. “Learning on the Job.” Presented at Fordham University School of Law Centennial Conference. http://law.fordham.edu/newsfiles/news-stevens.pdf. (January 20, 2008).
Texas v. Johnson. 1989. 491 U.S. 397.
Tushnet Mark. 2005. A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
United States v. Eichman. 1990. 496 U.S. 310.
United Steelworkers v. Weber. 1979. 443 U.S. 193.
University of Mississippi. 2003. “Subject to Interpretation.” UM Lawyer. Spring/Summer. www.law.olemiss.edu/UM%20LAW%20SPR03/UMlaw/interpretation.htm. (November 20, 2007).
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. 2005. Confirmation Hearings of John C. Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. 109th Congress, 1st sess. (S. Hrg. 109–158).
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. 2006. Confirmation Hearings of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to be Associate Justice of the United States. 109th Congress, 2nd Sess. (S. Hrg. 109–277).
U.S. House of Representatives. 1993. Congressional Record, H5171. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. 1989. 492 U.S. 490.
Wechsler Herbert. 1959. “Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law.” Harvard Law Review 73 (1): 1819.
Whittington Keith E. 2001. “Taking What They Give Us: Explaining the Court's Federalism Offensive.” Duke Law Journal 51 (1): 477520.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. 2002. 536 U.S. 639.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

American Political Science Review
  • ISSN: 0003-0554
  • EISSN: 1537-5943
  • URL: /core/journals/american-political-science-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 6
Total number of PDF views: 99 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 461 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.