Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:39:23.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Claim of Issue Creation on the U.S. Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Lee Epstein ,
Jeffrey A. Segal  and
Timothy Johnson
Lee Epstein
Affiliation:
Washington University
Jeffrey A. Segal
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Stony Brook
Timothy Johnson
Affiliation:
Washington University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We argue that a variant of the sua sponte doctrine, namely, the practice disfavoring the creation of issues not raised in the legal record, is a norm with substantial consequences for the U.S. Supreme Court. Without it, justices would act considerably more like legislators, who are free to engage in “issue creation,” and less like jurists, who must wait for issues to come to them. Yet, McGuire and Palmer claim that justices engage in issue creation in a “significant minority” of their cases. We dispute this finding because we think it is an artifact of the way McGuire and Palmer collected their data. Indeed, for virtually every case in which they found evidence of issue creation, we show that the issue was actually present in at least one of the litigants' briefs. This suggests that justices may be policy seekers, but they are not policy entrepreneurs; an that briefs filed by third parties (such as amici curiae) are generally not a source of important issues considered by the Court.

Type
Forum
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 90 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 845 - 852
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1996

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

REFERENCES

Barnard v. Thorstenn. 1989. 489 U.S. 546.Google Scholar
Brown v. Board of Education. 1954. 347 U.S. 483.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R.. 1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda-Setting in the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 82 (12):1109–27.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Epstein, Lee. 1994. “Interest Groups.” Presented at the Conference on Judicial Politics, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
Calvert, Randall L., and Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1994. “Strategy and Sophisticated Voting in the Senate.” Journal of Politics 56 (05): 349–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. 1989. 488 U.S. 469.Google Scholar
Cook, Wayne G. 1928. “The Rehearing Evil.” Iowa Law Review 14 (12):36–62.Google Scholar
Cortner, Richard C. 1975. The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties Policy. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
Degnan, Ronan, and Louisell, David W.. 1956. “Rehearing in American Appellate Courts.” Canadian Bar Review 34 (10): 898–938.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Kobylka, Joseph F.. 1992. The Supreme Court and Legal Change. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Gray, Ian, and Stanley, Moira. 1989. A Punishment in Search of a Crime. New York: Avon.Google Scholar
Hansen, John Mark. 1991. Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919–1981. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacoby, Tamar, and McDaniel, Ann. 1988. “Why Reopen a Closed Case? Upheaval on the Court.” Newsweek, May 9, p. 69.Google Scholar
Knight, Jack. 1992. Institutions and Social Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knight, Jack, and Epstein, Lee. N.d. “The Norm of Stare Decisis.” American Journal of Political Science. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Krimbel, Rosemary. 1989. “Rehearing Sua Sponte in the U.S. Supreme Court: A Procedure for Judicial Policymaking.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 65 (3):919–46.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, Karl N. 1960. The Common Law Tradition. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Mapp v. Ohio. 1961. 367 U.S. 643.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T., and Palmer, Barbara. 1995. “Issue Fluidity on the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 89 (09): 691–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owel, Daniel L. 1994. “Survey: Developments in Maryland Law, 1992–93.” Maryland Law Review 53 (3):793–804.Google Scholar
Patterson v. McClean Credit Union. 1989. 491 U.S. 164; 1988. 485 U.S. 617, rehearing ordered; 1987. 484 U.S. 814, certiorari granted.Google Scholar
Perry, H. W. 1991. Deciding to Decide. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. N.d. “Norms, Dragons, and Stare Decisis: A Response.” American Journal of Political Science. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Spriggs, James F. II, and Wahlbeck, Paul J.. 1995. “Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Walker, Thomas G., Epstein, Lee, and Dixon, William. 1988. “On the Mysterious Demise of Consensual Norms in the United States Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 50 (05):361–89.Google Scholar
Wright, John R. 1990. “Contributions, Lobbying, and Committee Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review 84 (06):417–38.Google Scholar
Wright, John R. 1995. Interest Groups and Congress: Lobbying, Contributions, and Influence. New York: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.