Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-f97m6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-16T05:40:16.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Executive Branch Socialization and Deference on the U.S. Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Rob Robinson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Are Supreme Court justices with prior experience in the executive branch more likely to defer to the president in separation of powers cases? While previous research has suggested that such background may signal judicial policy preferences but does not shape them, I argue here that institutional socialization may indeed increase future judicial deference to the president. Using an original data set of executive power cases decided between 1942 and 2007, I model justice-votes to test this hypothesis. I uncover three noteworthy findings: (1) a clear correlation between prior executive branch experience and support for the executive branch, (2) the degree of this support intensifies as executive branch tenure increases, a finding congruent with a socialization hypothesis, and (3) contrary to received wisdom, executive powers cases possess a clear ideological dimension, in line with the expectations of the attitudinal model.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 889 - 921
Copyright
© 2012 Law and Society 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

The author wishes to thank Jeff Yates, Brett Curry, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions on previous versions of this article.

References

References

Ashenfelter, Orley, Eisenberg, Theodore, & Schwab, Stewart J. (1995) “Politics and the Judiciary: The Influence of Judicial Background on Case Outcomes,” 24 The J. of Legal Studies 257–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael A., & Maltzman, Forrest (2008) “Does Legal Doctrine Matter? Unpacking Law and Policy Preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court,” 102 American Political Science Rev. 369–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (2006) Judges and their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Bergara, Mario, Richman, Barak D., & Spiller, Pablo T. (2003) “Modeling Supreme Court Strategic Decision Making: The Congressional Constraint,” XXVII Legislative Studies Q. 247–80.Google Scholar
Boyd, Christina L., Epstein, Lee, & Martin, Andrew D. (2010) “Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging,” 54 American J. of Political Science 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brudney, James J., Schiavoni, Sara, & Merritt, Deborah J. (1999) “Judicial Hostility toward Labor Unions—Applying the Social Background Model to a Celebrated Concern,” 60 Ohio State Law J. 1675–765.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory. A., & Wright, John R. (1988) “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court,” 82 American Political Science Rev. 1109–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carp, Robert, & Wheeler, Russell (1972) “Sink or Swim: The Socialization of a Federal District Judge,” 21 Emory Law J. 359–93.Google Scholar
Chao, Georgia T., et al. (1994) “Organizational Socialization: Its Content and Consequences,” 79 J. of Applied Psychology 730–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, Cornell W., & Pickerill, J. Mitchell (2004) “Guess What Happened on the Way to Revolution? Precursors to the Supreme Court's Federalism Revolution,” 34 Publius 85–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, Cornell W., & Pickerill, J. Mitchell (2006) “The Politics of Criminal Justice: How the New Right Regime Shaped the Rehnquist Court's Criminal Justice Jurisprudence,” 94 Georgetown Law J. 1385–425.Google Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr (2008) “The Consistency of Judicial Choice,” 70 J. of Politics 861–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, McKinzie. (2011) “Hail to the Chief? Presidential Approval and Supreme Court Decision-Making During War,” Paper read at Southern Political Science Association, January 6–8, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Deen, Rebecca E., Ignagni, Joseph, & Meernik, James (2003) “The Solicitor General as Amicus 1953–2000: How Influential?,” 87 Judicature 60–71.Google Scholar
Dorf, Michael. (2007) “Does Federal Executive Branch Experience Explain Why Some Republican Supreme Court Justices “Evolve” and Others Don't?,” 1 Harvard Law and Policy Rev. 458–76.Google Scholar
Ducat, Craig R., & Dudley, Robert L. (1989) “Federal District Judges and Presidential Power during the Postwar Era,” 51 The J. of Politics 98–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Knight, Jack (1998) The Choices Judges Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Knight, Jack, & Martin, Andrew D. (2001) “The Supreme Court as a Strategic National Policy Maker,” 50 Emory Law J. 583–611.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Segal, Jeffrey A. (2000) “Measuring Issue Salience,” 44 American J. of Political Science 66–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, et al. (2005) “The Supreme Court During Crisis: How War Affects Only Non-War Cases,” 80 New York University Law Rev. 1–116.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, et al. (2007) “Ideological Drift among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important?,” 101 Northwestern Univ. Law Rev. 1483–542.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, et al. (2007) “The Judicial Common Space,” 23 J. of Law, Economics, and Organization 303–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, et al. (2010) The U.S. Supreme Court Justices Database. Chicago, IL: Northwestern Univ. School of Law. Available at http://epstein.law.northwestern.edu/research/justicesdata.html (accessed 11 Sep. 2012).Google Scholar
Fisher, C. D. (1986) “Organizational Socialization: An Integrative Review,” 4 Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 101–45.Google Scholar
Garand, James C., Parkhurst, Catherine T., & Seoud, Rusanne J. (1991) “Bureaucrats, Policy Attitudes, and Political Behavior: Extension of the Bureau Voting Model of Government Growth,” 1 J. of Public Administration Research and Theory 177–212.Google Scholar
Gryski, Gerald S., Main, Eleanor C., & Dixon, William J. (1986) “Models of State High Court Decision Making in Sex Discrimination Cases,” 48 J. of Politics 143–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, Anna, & Friedman, Barry (2005) “Pulling Punches: Congressional Constraints on the Supreme Court's Constitutional Rulings, 1987–2000,” XXXI Legislative Studies Q. 533–62.Google Scholar
Harvey, Anna, & Friedman, Barry (2009) “Ducking Trouble: Congressionally-Induced Selection Bias in the Supreme Court's Agenda,” 71 J. of Politics 574–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heise, Michael. (2002) “The Past, Present, and Future of Empirical Legal Scholarship: Judicial Decision Making and the New Empiricism,” 2002 Univ. of Illinois Law Rev. 819–50.Google Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., Lindquist, Stefanie A., & Martinek, Wendy L. (2007) Judging on a Collegial Court: Influences On Federal Appellate Decision Making. Charlottesville: Univ. of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, & Sprague, John (1987) “Networks in Context: The Social Flow of Political Information,” 81 American Political Science Rev. 1197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ku, Julian. (2005) “Chief Justice Roberts and Executive Power: The Clerkship Inheritance,” Opinio Juris. Available at http://opiniojuris.org/2005/09/08/chief-justice-roberts-and-executive-power-the-clerkship-inheritance/ (accessed 19 Sep. 2011).Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., & Quinn, Kevin M. (2002) “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999,” 10 Political Analysis 134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., & Quinn, Kevin M. (2005) “Can Ideal Point Estimates be Used as Explanatory Variables?,” Available at http://adm.wustl.edu/media/working/resnote.pdf (accessed 16 Sep. 2011).Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. (1998) “Explaining Executive Success in the US Supreme Court,” 51 Political Research Q. 505–26.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T., & Stimson, James A. (2004) “The Least Dangerous Branch Revisited: New Evidence on Supreme Court Responsiveness to Public Preferences,” 66 J. of Politics 1018–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, Kevin J. (2004) Reconsidering Roosevelt on Race: How the Presidency Paved the Road to Brown. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meier, Kenneth J., & Nigro, Lloyd G. (1976) “Representative Bureaucracy and Policy Preferences: A Study in the Attitudes of Federal Executives,” 36 Public Administration Rev. 458–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Stuart S. (1962) “Judicial Backgrounds and Criminal Cases,” 53 J. of Criminal Law and Criminology 333–39.Google Scholar
Norton, Edward C., Wang, Hua, & Ai, Chunron (2004) “Computing Interaction Effects and Standard Errors in Logit and Probit Models,” 4 Stata J. 154–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., & Shapiro, Robert Y. (1983) “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy,” 77 American Political Science Rev. 175–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, H. W. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Mark J., & Kritzer, Herbert M. (2002) “Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making,” 96 American Political Science Rev. 305–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Daniel M. (2002) “Assessing and Predicting Who Wins Federal Tax Trial Decisions,” 37 Wake Forest Law Rev. 473–515.Google Scholar
Schneider, Daniel M. (2005) “Using the Social Background Model to Explain Who Wins Federal Appellate Tax Decisions: Do Less Traditional Judges Favor the Taxpayer?,” 25 Virginia Tax Rev. 201–49.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. (1988) “Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General during the Warren and Burger Courts: A Research Note,” 41 Political Research Q. 135–44.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. (1997) “Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts,” 91 American Political Science Rev. 28–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Spaeth, Harold J. (1993) The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Spaeth, Harold J. (2002) The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., Timpone, Richard J., & Howard, Robert M. (2000) “Buyer Beware? Presidential Success through Supreme Court Appointments,” 53 Political Research Q. 557–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Westerland, Chad (2005) “The Supreme Court, Congress, and Judicial Review,” 83 North Carolina Law Rev. 101–66.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., et al. (1995) “Ideological Values and the Votes of US Supreme Court Justices Revisited,” 57 J. of Politics 812–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sisk, Gregory C., Heise, Michael, & Morriss, Andrew P. (1998) “Charting the Influences on the Judicial Mind: An Empirical Study of Judicial Reasoning,” 73 New York Univ. Law Rev. 1377–500.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold, et al. (2010) “The Supreme Court Database,” Judicial Research Initiative. Available at http://scdb.wustl.edu (accessed 11 Sep. 2012).Google Scholar
Spohn, Cassia. (1990) “The Sentencing Decisions of Black and White Judges: Expected and Unexpected Similarities,” 24 Law & Society Rev. 1197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spriggs, James F. II, & Hansford, Thomas G. (2001) “Explaining the Overruling of US Supreme Court Precedent,” 63 J. of Politics 1091–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, David A. (2007) “Memo to the President (and His Opponents): Ideology Still Counts,” 102 Northwestern Univ. Law Rev. 49–53.Google Scholar
Tate, C. Neal, & Handberg, Roger (1991) “Time Binding and Theory Building in Personal Attribute Models of Supreme Court Voting Behavior, 1916–88,” 35 American J. of Political Science 460–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tate, C. Neal. (1981) “Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of US Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economics Decisions, 1946–1978,” 75 American Political Science Rev. 355–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Helena D. C., & Anderson, Neil (1998) “Changes in Newcomers' Psychological Contracts during Organizational Socialization: A Study of Recruits Entering the British Army,” 19 J. of Organizational Behavior 745–67.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, Wittenberg, Jason, & King, Gary “CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results, 2.0,” Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 2001.Google Scholar
Uhlman, Thomas M. (1978) “Black Elite Decision Making: The Case of Trial Judges,” 22 American J. of Political Science 884–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, Sidney S. (1973) “Social Background as an Indicator to the Votes of Supreme Court Justices in Criminal Cases: 1947–1956 Terms,” 17 American J. of Political Science 622–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unah, Isaac, & Hancock, Ange-Marie (2006) “US Supreme Court Decision Making, Case Salience, and the Attitudinal Model,” 28 Law and Policy 295–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Thomas G., & Barrow, Deborah J. (1985) “The Diversification of the Federal Bench: Policy and Process Ramifications,” 47 J. of Politics 596–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, Susan, Combs, Michael, & Gruhl, John (1988) “Do Black Judges Make a Difference?,” 32 American J. of Political Science 126–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, Jeff, & Whitford, Andrew (1998) “Presidential Power and the United States Supreme Court,” 51 Political Research Q. 539–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zschirnt, Simon, Clayton, Cornell, & Pickerill, J. Mitchell (2008) “The Unitary Executive Meets Judicial Supremacy: How the New Right Regime has Shaped the Supreme Court's Separation of Powers Jurisprudence,” Paper read at American Political Science Association, August 30, 2008, Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Clinton v. Jones (1997) 520 U.S. 681.Google Scholar
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) 542 U.S. 507.Google Scholar
Morrison v. Olson (1988) 487 U.S. 654.Google Scholar
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) 343 U.S. 579.Google Scholar