Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:16:21.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Original Look at Originalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Robert M. Howard  and
Jeffrey A. Segal
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

While the normative debate over originalism continues unabated (e.g., Scalia 1997; Whittington 1999), the systematic empirical validity of originalism lies relatively unexamined. Using data derived from briefs filed by litigants over eight years, we developed an initial systematic test of the influence of arguments about text and intent on the decisions of U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Typically, we find that Justices support textual or intentional arguments when they are made by liberal parties or when they are made by conservative parties, but not across the board. Multivariate analyses show that legal arguments as to text, and particularly intent, have little impact on the votes of even those Justices alleged to be originalists. Instead, ideology continues to explain their decisions.

Type
Papers of General Interest
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , 2002 , pp. 113 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 Law and Society Association.

Footnotes

We thank Melissa Marschall, Ellen Lazarus, and Jeff Davis for research assistance. We also thank the National Science Foundation (SBR 9515335) for financial support.

References

References

Ball, Howard, & Cooper, Phillip J. (1992) Of Power and Right. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, Randy E (1999) “An Originalism for Nonoriginalists,” 45 Loyola Law Rev. 611–54.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (1995) The Supreme Court, 5th Ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Baumeister, Roy, & Newman, Leonard (1994) “Self-Regulation of Cognitive Inference and Decision Processes,” 20 Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bork, Robert H. (1971) “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems.” 47 Indiana Law J. 1–35.Google Scholar
Boucher, Robert, & Segal, Jeffrey A. (1995) “Supreme Court Justices as Strategic Decision Makers: Offensive Grants and Defensive Denials on the Vinson Court,” 57 J. of Politics 824–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, William J. (1985) “Remarks of Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.,” in The Great Debate. Washington, DC: Federalist Society.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul, & Krol, John F. (1989) “Strategies in Certiorari Voting on the United States Supreme Court,” 51 J. of Politics 828–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brest, Paul (1980) “The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding,” 60 Boston Univ. Law Rev. 204–38.Google Scholar
Carter, Lief H. (1985) Contemporary Constitutional Lawmaking. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Sue (1989) Justice Rehnquist and the Constitution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1986) Law's Empire. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1997) “The Arduous Virtue of Fidelity: Originalism, Scalia, Tribe, and Nerve,” 65 Fordham Law Rev. 1249–68.Google Scholar
Ely, John Hart (1980) Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Knight, Jack (1998) Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Kobylka, Joseph F. (1992) The Supreme Court and Legal Change. Chapel Hill, NC: Univ. of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Mershon, Carol (1995) “Measuring Political Preferences,” 40 American J. of Political Science 261–94.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Walker, Thomas G. (1995) “The Role of the Supreme Court in American Society: Playing the Reconstruction Game,” in Epstein, L., ed., Contemplating Courts. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey A., Spaeth, Harold J. & Walker, Thomas G. (1996) The Supreme Court Compendium, 2d ed., Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Eskridge, William N. Jr. (1991) “Reneging on History? Playing the Court/Congress/President Civil Rights Game.” 79 California Law Rev. 613–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farber, Daniel (1989) “The Originalism Debate: A Guide for the Perplexed,” 49 Ohio State Law J. 1085–106.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John, & Shipan, Charles (1990) “Congressional Influence on Bureaucracy,” 6 J. of Law Economics & Organization 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John, & Weingast, Barry (1992) “A Positive Theory of Statutory Interpretation.” 12 International Rev. of Law & Economics 263–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gely, Rafael, & Spiller, Pablo T. (1990) “A Rational Choice Theory of Supreme Court Decision Making with Applications to the State Farm and Grove City Cases,” 6 J. of Law, Economics & Organizations 263–300.Google Scholar
George, Tracey E., & Epstein, Lee (1992) “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making,” 86 American Political Science Rev. 323–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Scott Douglas (1995) To Secure these Rights: The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation. New York: New York Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, James (1983) “From Simplicity to Complexity: The Development of Theory in the Study of Judicial Behavior,” 5 Political Behavior 7–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. (1991) “Decision Making in Appellate Courts,” in Gates, J. B. & Johnson, C. A., eds., The American Courts: A Critical Assessment. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard (1993) The Constitution Besieged: The Rise and Demise of Lochner Era Police Power Jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard (2001) “What's Law Got to Do with It?” 26 Law & Social Inquiry 465–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Leslie (1991) In Defense of the Text. Savage, MD: Rowman & Little-field.Google Scholar
Graber, Mark (2000) Personal Correspondence. 18 July.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, Kent (1992) Law and Objectivity. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, & Kinder, Donald (1987) News that Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, & McGuire, William (1993) Explorations in Political Psychology. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Jessica (2000) “An Empirical Study of the Effects of Stare Decisis on Appellate Court Judges of the Fourth Circuit,” typescript, Univ. of Chicago.Google Scholar
Kahn, Ronald (1994) The Supreme Court and Constitutional Theory. Lawrence, KS: Univ. of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Kahn, Ronald (1999) “Interpretive Norms and Supreme Court Decision Making: The Rehnquist Court on Privacy and Religion,” in Clayton, C. W. & Gillman, H., eds., Supreme Court Decision Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, & Tversky, Amos (1984) “Choices, Values, and Frames,” 39 American Psychologist 341–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karsten, Peter (1997) Heart vs. Heart vs: Judge-Made Law in Nineteenth Century America. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O. & Verba, Sidney (1994) Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Jack, & Epstein, Lee (1996) “The Norm of Stare Decisis,” 40 American J. of Political Science 1018–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornhauser, Lewis (1995) “Adjudication by a Resource-Constrained Team: Hierarchy and Precedent in a Judicial System,” 68 Southern California Law Rev. 1605–29.Google Scholar
Kort, Fred (1963) “Content Analysis of Judicial Opinions and Rules of Law,” in Schubert, G., ed., Judicial Decision Making. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Kunda, Ziva (1990) “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,” 108 Psychological Bulletin 480–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lazarus, Edward (1998) Closed Chambers: The First Eyewitness Account of the Epic Struggles Inside the Supreme Court. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
Levinson, Sanford (1996) “The Limited Relevance of Originalism in the Actual Performance of Legal Roles,” 19 Harvard J. of Law & Public Policy 495–508.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane J., ed. (1990) Beyond Self-Interest. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Markovits, Richard S (1998) Matters of Principle: Legitimate Legal Argument and Constitutional Interpretation. New York: New York Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Marks, Brian A. (1988) A Model of Judicial Influence on Congressional Policymaking: Grove City College v. Bell. Working papers in Political Science, P-88-7, The Hoover Institution, Stanford Univ.Google Scholar
Meese, Edwin III (1986) “Speech Before the American Bar Association,” The Great Debate. Washington, DC: Federalist Society.Google Scholar
Nichol, Gene R. (1999) “Justice Scalia and the Printz Case: The Trials of an Occasional Originalist,” 70 Univ. of Colorado Law Rev. 953–73.Google Scholar
Phelps, Glenn A., & Gates, John B. (1991) “The Myth of Jurisprudence: Interpretive Theory in the Constitutional Opinions of Justices Rehnquist and Brennan,” 31 Santa Clara Law Rev. 567–96.Google Scholar
Powell, H. Jefferson (1988) Symposium: “The Republican Civic Tradition: Reviving Republicanism,” 97 Yale Law J. 1703–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rakove, Jack N. (1996) Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. (1990) “Political Science and Rational Choice,” in Alt, J. E. & Shepsle, K. A., eds., Perspectives on Positive Political Economy. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Scalia, Antonin (1997) A Matter of Interpretation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon (1965) The Judicial Mind: The Attitudes and Ideologies of Supreme Court Justices, 1946–1963. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Schultz, David A., & Smith, Christopher E. (1996) The Jurisprudential Vision of Justice Antonin Scalia. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. (1997) “Separation of Power Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts,” 91 American Political Science Rev. 28–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Cover, Albert D. (1989) “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices,” 83 American Political Science Rev. 557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., Epstein, Lee, Cameron, Charles M. & Spaeth, Harold J. (1995) “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Revisited,” 57 J. of Politics 812–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Howard, Robert M. (2001) “Litigant Requests to Overturn Precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court, 1985–1994,” 85 Judicature 148–57.Google 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. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Christopher E. (1997) “Clarence Thomas: A Distinctive Justice,” 28 Selon Hall Law Rev. 1–28.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., & Haire, Susan (1992) “Integrating Alternative Approaches to the Study of Judicial Voting: Obscenity Cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals.” 36 American J. of Political Science 963–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J (1964) “The Judicial Restraint of Mr. Justice Frankfurter—Myth or Reality?” 8 Midwest J. of Political Science 22–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J., & Segal, Jeffrey A. (1999) Majority Rule Versus Minority Will: Adherence to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court,. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J., & Segal, Jeffrey A. (2000) “The U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Database: Providing New Insights into the Court,” 83 Judicature 228–35.Google Scholar
Spiller, Pablo T., & Gely, Rafael (1992) “Congressional Control or Judicial Independence: The Determinants of U.S. Supreme Court Labor-Relations Decisions, 1949–1988,” 23 RAND J. of Economics 463–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symposium: “Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution” (1996) 19 Harvard J. of Law & Public Policy 237–532.Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney (1972) “The Decision to Grant Certiorari as an Indicator to Decision 'On the Merits.'” 4 Polity 429–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney (1978) “Selecting Cases for Supreme Court Review: An Underdog Model,” 72 American Political Science Rev. 902–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Herbert (1959) “Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law,” 73 Harvard Law Rev. 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, Keith E. (1999) Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review. Lawrence, KS: Univ. of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Zlotnick, David M. (1999) “Justice Scalia and His Critics: An Exploration of Scalia's Fidelity to His Constitutional Methodology,” 48 Emory Law J. 1377–1429.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).Google Scholar
Michael M. v. Sonoma County Superior Court, California, 450 U.S. 464 (1981).Google Scholar
Potomac Electric Power Company v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation, 449 U.S. 268 (1980).Google Scholar
Presley v. Etowah County Commissioners, 503 U.S. 491 (1992).Google Scholar
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).Google Scholar
United States ex rel. Long Foo v. Shaughnessy, 234 F.2d 715 (1955), p. 719.Google Scholar
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).Google Scholar
U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1994).Google Scholar