Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:22:31.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Aggregate Dynamics of Lower Court Responses to the US Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Ali S. Masood ,
Benjamin J. Kassow  and
Donald R. Songer
Ali S. Masood*
Affiliation:
Rhodes College
Benjamin J. Kassow
Affiliation:
University of North Dakota
Donald R. Songer
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina
*
Contact the corresponding author, Ali Masood, at [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We argue that given finite resources to review the large number of lower court decisions, Supreme Court justices should primarily be interested in aggregate responses to their precedents. We offer a theory in which the US Supreme Court drives aggregate responses to its decisions by signaling the utility of its precedents to judges on the lower courts. Specifically, we argue that lower court judges have a greater propensity to rely on a Supreme Court decision when the justices explicitly direct a lower court to consider a formally argued decision in its summary decisions. Our results demonstrate that such signals significantly increase the frequency with which the lower courts adopt the precedents of the US Supreme Court. We corroborate the causality of these links through qualitative analyses, distance matching methods, and simultaneous sensitivity analysis. Our study offers new and important insights on judicial impact and decision-making behavior in the American courts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , Fall 2019 , pp. 159 - 186
Copyright
© 2019 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 dedicate this article to the memory of Don Songer, who passed away while working on this project. We would like to thank Matthew Blackwell, Tobias Heinrich, David Klein, Amanda Licht, Monica Lineberger, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions. Data and supporting materials necessary to reproduce the results in the article are available in the JLC Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DZZY7G.

References

Arceneaux, Kevin and David, W. Nickerson. 2009. “Modeling Certainty with Clustered Data: A Comparison of Methods.” Political Analysis 17 (2): 177–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2006. Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benesh, Sara C. 2002. The U.S. Court of Appeals and the Law of Confessions: Perspectives on the Hierarchy of Justice. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.Google Scholar
Benesh, Sara C. 2008. “GVRs and Their Aftermath in the Seventh Circuit and Beyond.” Southern Illinois Law Review 32:659–81.Google Scholar
Benesh, Sara C., Jennifer K. Jacobson, Amanda Schaefer, and Nicole, Simmons. 2014. “Supreme Court GVRs and Lower-Court Reactions.” Justice System Journal 35 (2): 162–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benesh, Sara C., and Malia, Reddick. 2002. “Overruled: An Event History Analysis of Lower Court Reaction to Supreme Court Alteration of Precedent.” Journal of Politics 64 (2): 534–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, Matthew. 2014. “A Selection Bias Approach to Sensitivity Analysis for Causal Effects.” Political Analysis 22 (2): 169–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowie, Jennifer B., Donald, R. Songer, and John, Szmer. 2014. The View from the Bench and Chambers: Examining Judicial Process and Decision Making in the U. S. Courts of Appeals. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Braman, Eileen. 2006. “Reasoning on the Threshold: Testing the Separability of Preferences in Legal Decision Making.” Journal of Politics 68 (2): 308–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braman, Eileen. 2009. Law, Politics, and Perception: How Policy Preferences Influence Legal Reasoning. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Braman, Eileen and Thomas, E. Nelson. 2007. “Mechanism of Motivated Reasoning? Analogical Perception in Discrimination Disputes.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (4): 940–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruhl, Aaron-Andrew P. 2009. “The Supreme Court’s Controversial GVRS—and an Alternative.” Michigan Law Review 107 (5): 711–55.Google Scholar
Corley, Pamela C. 2008. “The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Influence of Parties’ Briefs.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (3): 468–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C. 2009. “Uncertain Precedent: Circuit Court Responses to Supreme Court Plurality Opinions.” American Politics Research 37 (1): 30–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C. 2010. Concurring Opinion Writing on the U.S. Supreme Court. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Corley, Pamela C., Amy, Steigerwalt, and Artemus, Ward. 2013. The Puzzle of Unanimity: Consensus on the United States Supreme Court. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Corley, Pamela C., and Justin, Wedeking. 2014. “The (Dis)advantage of Certainty: The Importance of Certainty in Language.” Law and Society Review 48 (1): 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Jeffrey, A. Segal. 2000. “Measuring Issue Salience.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 66–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansford, Thomas G., and James, F. Spriggs. 2006. The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, Arthur D. 1984. “‘Granted, Vacated, and Remanded’: Shedding Light on a Dark Corner of Supreme Court Practice.” Judicature 67:389–401.Google Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., Stefanie, A. Lindquist, and Wendy, L. Martinek. 2006. Judging on a Collegial Court: Influences on Federal Appellate Decision Making. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Hinkle, Rachael K. 2015. “Legal Constraint in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Journal of Politics 77 (3): 721–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinkle, Rachael K. 2016. “Strategic Anticipation of En Banc Review in the US Courts of Appeals.” Law and Society Review 50 (2): 383–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, Daniel E., Kosuke Imai, Gary King, and Elizabeth, A. Stuart. 2007. “Matching as Non- parametric Reprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference.” Political Analysis 15 (3): 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Luke Keele and Teppei, Yamamoto. 2010. “Identification, Inference, and Sensitivity Analysis for Causal Mediation Effects.” Statistical Science 25 (1): 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Gary King and Elizabeth, A. Stuart. 2008. “Misunderstandings between Experimentalists and Observationalists about Causal Inference.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 171 (2): 481–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Charles A. 1979. “Lower Court Reactions to Supreme Court Decisions: A Quantitative Examination.” American Journal of Political Science 23 (4): 792–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassow, Benjamin J., Donald, R. Songer, and Michael, P. Fix. 2012. “The Influence of Precedent on State Supreme Courts.” Political Research Quarterly 65 (2): 372–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keele, Luke. 2010. “An Overview of rbounds: An R Package for Rosenbaum Bounds Sensitivity Analysis with Matched Data.” https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c0b1/823186cf5e0869ee35657d6809f803c8e35c.pdf.Google Scholar
King, Gary and Richard, Nielsen. Forthcoming. “Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching.” Political Analysis.Google Scholar
Klein, David E. 2002. Making Law in the United States Courts of Appeals. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, David E., and Robert, J. Hume. 2003. “Fear of Reversal as an Explanation of Lower Court Compliance.” Law and Society Review 37 (3): 579–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luse, Jennifer K., Geoffrey McGovern, Wendy L. Martinek, and Sara, C. Benesh. 2009. “‘Such Inferior Courts …’: Compliance by Circuits with Jurisprudential Regimes.” American Politics Research 37 (1): 75–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs and Paul, J. Wahlbeck. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest and Paul, J. Wahlbeck. 1996. “Strategic Policy Considerations and Voting Fluidity on the Burger Court.” American Political Science Review 90 (3): 581–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masood, Ali S., Benjamin, J. Kassow, and Donald, R. Songer. 2017. “Supreme Court Precedent in a Judicial Hierarchy.” American Politics Research 45 (3): 403–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masood, Ali S., and Donald, R. Songer. 2013. “Reevaluating the Implications of Decision-Making Models: The Role of Summary Decisions in US Supreme Court Analysis.” Journal of Law and Courts 1 (2): 363–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacelle, Richard L., and Lawrence, Baum. 1992. “Supreme Court Authority in the Judiciary: A Study of Remands.” American Politics Research 20 (2): 169–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, H. W. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R. 1984. “The Consequences of Adjustment for a Concomitant Variable That Has Been Affected by the Treatment.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 147 (5): 656–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold, J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Account Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., Harold, J. Spaeth, and Sara, C. Benesh. 2005. The Supreme Court in the American Legal System. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., and Susan, Haire. 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 (4): 963–82.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Jeffrey, A. Segal, and Charles, M. Cameron. 1994. “The Hierarchy of Justice: Testing a Principal-Agent Model of Supreme Court–Circuit Court Interactions.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (3): 673–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., and Reginald, S. Sheehan. 1990. “Supreme Court Impact on Compliance and Outcomes: Miranda and New York Times in the United States Courts of Appeals.” Western Political Quarterly 43 (2): 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold, Epstein, Lee, Ruger, Andrew D., Martin, Jeffrey Segal, Ruger, Theodore J. and Sarah, C. Benesh. 2017. “The U.S. Supreme Court Database.” Version 2017. http://supremecourtdatabase.org.Google Scholar
Spriggs, James F., Forrest, Maltzman, and Paul, J. Wahlbeck. 1999. “Bargaining on the U.S. Supreme Court: Justices’ Responses to Majority Opinion Drafts.” Journal of Politics 61 (2): 485–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul J. 1998. “The Development of a Legal Rule: The Federal Common Law of Public Nuisance.” Law and Society Review 32 (3): 613–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedeking, Justin. 2012. “Why Do Policy-Motivated Justices Conform to Unfavorable Precedents? The Role of Social-Legal Backgrounds and Precedential Characteristics.” Justice System Journal 33 (1): 69–95.Google Scholar
Westerland, Chad, Segal, Jeffrey A., Epstein, Lee, Cameron, Charles M. and Scott, Comparato. 2010. “Strategic Defiance and Compliance in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (4): 891–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zorn, Christopher. 1998. “An Analytic and Empirical Examination of Zero-Inflated and Hurdle Poisson Specifications.” Sociological Methods and Research 26 (3): 368–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zorn, Christopher and Jennifer, B. Bowie. 2010. “Ideological Influences on Decision Making in the Federal Judicial Hierarchy: An Empirical Assessment.” Journal of Politics 72 (4): 1212–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Masood et al. Supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 260.6 KB