Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T04:18:18.884Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategic Auditing in a Political Hierarchy: An Informational Model of the Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2000

Charles M. Cameron ,
Jeffrey A. Segal  and
Donald Songer
Charles M. Cameron
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Jeffrey A. Segal
Affiliation:
SUNY at Stony Brook
Donald Songer
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine how the Supreme Court uses signals and indices from lower courts to determine which cases to review. In our game theoretic model, a higher court cues from publicly observable case facts, the known preferences of a lower court, and its decision. The lower court attempts to enforce its own preferences, exploiting ambiguity in cases' fact patterns. In equilibrium, a conservative higher court declines to review conservative decisions from lower courts regardless of the facts of the case or the relative ideology of the judges. But a conservative higher court probabilistically reviews liberal decisions, with the “audit rate” tied, to observable facts and the ideology of the lower court judge. We derive comparative static results and test them with a random sample of search-and-seizure cases appealed to the Burger Court between 1972 and 1986. The evidence broadly supports the model.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 94 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 101 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2000

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

Armstrong, Virginia, and Johnson, Charles A.. 1982. “Certiorari Decisions by the Warren and Burger Courts: Is Cue Theory Time Bound?” Polity 15 (1): 143–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andeoni, James, Erard, Brian, and Feinstein, Jonathan. 1998. “Tax Compliance.” Journal of Economic Literature 36 (06): 818–60.Google Scholar
Bagnoli, Mark, and Bergstrom, Ted. 1989. “Log-Concave Probability and Its Applications.” Working Paper 89-23 (10 1989). University of Michigan Center for Research on Economic and Social Theory.Google Scholar
Banks, Jeffrey. 1991. Signaling Games in Political Science. Chur, Switzerland: Harwood Academic.Google Scholar
Banks, Jeffrey, and Weingast, Barry. 1992. “The Political Control of Bureaucracies under Asymmetric Information.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (2): 509–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Jackman, Simon. 1998. “Beyond Linearity by Default: Generalized Additive Models.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (2): 596–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, Hall, Melinda Gann, and Langer, Laura. 1998. “Measuring the Preferences of State Supreme Court Justices.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul. 1979. “The New Certiorari Game.” Journal of Politics 41 (05): 649–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blasi, Victor. 1983. The Burger Court: The Counter-Revolution That Wasn't. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory, and Wright, John. 1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 82 (12): 1109–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvert, Randall. 1985. “The Value of Biased Information: A Rational Choice Model of Political Advice.” Journal of Politics 47 (05): 530–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleveland, William S. 1993. Visualizing Data. Sumit, NJ: Hobart.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee. 1991. “Courts and Interest Groups.” In The American Courts: A Critical Assessment, ed. Gates, John B. and Johnson, Charles A.. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Pp. 335–72.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Knight, Jack. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey, Spaeth, Harold, and Walker, Thomas. 1997. The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions and Developments. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Farrell, Joseph. 1993. “Meaning and Credibility in Cheap Talk Games.” Games and Economic Behavior 5 (10): 514–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeney, Floyd. 1975. “Conflicts Involving Federal Law: A Review of Cases Presented to the Supreme Court.” In Structures and Internal Procedures: Recommendations for Change, ed. Commission of Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Pp. 93–111.Google Scholar
Giles, Micheal, Hettinger, Virginia, and Peppers, Todd C.. 1998. “Alternative Measures of Preferences for Judges of the Courts of Appeals.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Goldfeld, Stephan M., and Quandt, Richard E.. 1973. “The Estimation of Structural Shifts by Switching Regressions.” Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 2 (10): 475–85.Google Scholar
Greene, William H. 1991. LIMDEP Version 6.0: User's Manual and Reference Guide. Bellport, NY: Econometric Software.Google Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann. 1992. “Electoral Politics and Strategic Voting in State Supreme Courts.” Journal of Politics 54 (05): 421–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1970. The Logic of Images in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kornhauser, Lewis. 1992. “Modeling Collegial Courts II: Legal Doctrine.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 8 (10): 441–70.Google Scholar
Levi, Edward H. 1948. An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Manski, Charles F., and Lerman, Steven R.. 1977. “The Estimation of Choice Probabilities from Choice Based Samples.” Econometrica 45 (8): 1977–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry. 1984. “The New Economics of Organization.” American Journal of Political Science 28 (11): 739–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, H. W. Jr. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon A. 1959. Quantitative Analysis of Judicial Behavior. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1984. “Predicting Supreme Court Decisions Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases, 1962–1981.” American Political Science Review 78 (12): 891–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey, and Spaeth, Harold. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R. 1979. “Concern for Policy Outputs as a Cue for Supreme Court Decisions on Certiorari.” Journal of Politics 41 (11): 1185–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald, Segal, Jeffrey, and Cameron, Charles. 1994. “The Hierarchy of Justice: Testing a Principal-Agent Model of Supreme Court-Circuit Court Interactions.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (08): 673–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, Joseph, Schick, Marvin, Muraskin, Matthew, and Rosen, Daniel. 1963. “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Jurisdiction: Cue Theory.” In Judicial Decision Making, ed. Schubert, Glendon. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Pp. 111–32.Google Scholar
Tate, C. Neal, and Handberg, Roger. 1991. “Time Binding and Theory Building in Personal Attribute Models of Supreme Court Voting Behavior, 1916–88.” American Journal of Political Science 35 (05): 460–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teger, Stuart, and Kosinski, Douglas. 1980. “The Cue Theory of Supreme Court Certiorari Jurisdiction: A Reconsideration.” Journal of Politics 42 (08): 834–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, Sidney S. 1984. “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a Predictive Variable.” American Political Science Review 78 (12): 901–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.