Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:15:11.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Greater public confidence in the US Supreme Court predicts more jurisdiction stripping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2021

Joseph Daniel Ura Open the ORCID record for Joseph Daniel Ura [Opens in a new window]  and
Patrick C. Wohlfarth
Joseph Daniel Ura*
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University, 2935 Research Parkway, 311 Liberal Arts & Social Science Building, College Station, TX 77843 Texas A&M University at Qatar, Texas A&M Engineering Building, PO Box 23874, Education City, Doha, Qatar
Patrick C. Wohlfarth
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, 3140 Tydings Hall, 7343 Preinkert Drive, College Park, MD 20742, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A growing body of empirical research shows an association between public support for the US Supreme Court and both judicial independence and congressional court curbing activity. At the same time, studies of jurisdiction stripping show Congress’ efforts to limit federal courts’ jurisdiction are principally related to courts’ workloads rather than ideological differences between courts and Congress. Here, the authors connect these streams of inquiry by testing the hypothesis of a negative relationship between public support for the Supreme Court and jurisdiction-stripping legislation. Contrary to prior studies, the authors find a positive relationship between Americans’ confidence in the Supreme Court and jurisdiction stripping. This result indicates the need for additional research on the interactions among public opinion, federal courts, and Congress.

Keywords

American politicsjudicial politicspublic opinion
Type
Research Note
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , October 2022 , pp. 831 - 839
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Political Science 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.)

References

Bailey, MA (2007) Comparable preference estimates across time and institutions for the court, congress, and presidency. American Journal of Political Science 51, 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chutkow, DM (2008) Jurisdiction stripping: litigation, ideology, and congressional control of the court. Journal of Politics 70, 1053–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, TS (2009) The separation of powers, court curbing, and judicial legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science 53, 971–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, TS (2011) The Limits of Judicial Independence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, L, Martin, AD, Segal, JA and Westerland, C (2007) The judicial common space. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 23, 303–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, B (2009) The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
Gibson, JL, Caldeira, GA and Baird, VA (1998) On the legitimacy of National High Courts. American Political Science Review 92, 343–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graber, MA (2005) Constructing judicial review. Annual Review of Political Science 8, 425–451.Google Scholar
Greenfest, SW (2013) Explaining congressional grants of jurisdiction to the Federal District Courts. Justice System Journal 34, 274–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heise, NA (2011) Stripped: congress and jurisdiction stripping. Faulkner Law Review 3, 1–16.Google Scholar
Helmke, G (2010) The origins of institutional Crises in Latin America. American Journal of Political Science 53, 737–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, PE (2005) Oh no! I got the wrong sign! What should I do? Journal of Economic Education 36, 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mark, A and Zilis, MA (2018) Restraining the court: assessing accounts of congressional attempts to limit Supreme Court authority. Legislative Studies Quarterly 43, 141–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mark, A and Zilis, MA (2019) The conditional effectiveness of legislative threats: how court curbing alters the behavior of (Some) Supreme Court justices. Political Research Quarterly 72, 570–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, AH, Conway, ND and Ura, JD (2017) Confidence and constraint: public opinion, judicial independence, and the Roberts court. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 54, 209–228.Google Scholar
Nelson, MJ and Uribe, A (2017) Opportunity and overrides: the effect of the court's public support on congressional policymaking. Political Research Quarterly 70, 632–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, JR (2001) Information and judicial review: a signalling game of legislative-judicial interaction. American Journal of Political Science 45, 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, JR and Ura, JD (2020) A majoritarian basis for judicial countermajoritarianism. Journal of Theoretical Politics 32(2), 435–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0951629820927784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, JA, Westerland, C and Lindquist, SA (2011) Congress, the Supreme Court, and judicial review: testing a constitutional separation of powers model. American Journal of Political Science 55, 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ura, JD and Wohlfarth, PC (2010) An appeal to the people: public opinion and congressional support for the Supreme Court. Journal of Politics 72, 939–956.Google Scholar
Vanberg, G (2001) Legislative-judicial relations: a game-theoretic approach to constitutional review. American Journal of Political Science 45, 346–361.Google Scholar
Vanberg, G (2005) The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whittington, KE (2005) ‘Interpose your friendly hand’: political support for the exercise of judicial review by the United States Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 99, 583–596.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Ura and Wohlfarth Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/6OOPMR
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Ura and Wohlfarth supplementary material

Ura and Wohlfarth supplementary material

Download Ura and Wohlfarth supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 186.5 KB