Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:30:05.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pushing Constitutional Limits in the U.S. States: Legislative Professionalism and Judicial Review of State Laws by the U.S. Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Susan M. Miller ,
Eve M. Ringsmuth  and
Joshua M. Little
Susan M. Miller*
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC USA
Eve M. Ringsmuth
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK USA
Joshua M. Little
Affiliation:
evolve24, St. Louis, MO, USA
*
Susan M. Miller, Department of Political Science, University of South Carolina, 326 Gambrell Hall, 817 Henderson Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When the U.S. Supreme Court exercises its power of judicial review over state laws, its decisions, like the legislation it considers, frequently speak to major policy debates. Despite the Court's routine involvement with state statutes, theoretical explanations of judicial review generally do not distinguish between state laws and federal laws. The characteristics of state legislatures lead legislators in different states to have distinct perspectives and incentives, and ultimately affect the types of laws enacted in different states. We suggest that because the level of professionalism of state legislatures affects the types of laws pursued by different states, it may also affect the likelihood that a state has a law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. We find support for this expectation. Specifically, legislative professionalism is associated with an increased likelihood that a state has a law invalidated by the Court. This new evidence indicates that it is important to consider the legislative context in which state laws originate when examining the Court's review of state laws.

Keywords

legislative professionalismlegislative politicslegislative/judicial interactionjudicial politicsfederal/statefederalism
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 476 - 491
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2015

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

Ansolabehere, Stephen. 2012. “CCES Common Content, 2010”, http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/17705, Harvard Dataverse, V3 (accessed June 16, 2015).Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen. 2010. “CCES, Common Content, 2008”, http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/14003. Harvard Dataverse, V6 (accessed June 16, 2015).Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Schaffner, Brian. 2013. “CCES Common Content, 2012.” http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/21447. Harvard Dataverse, V7 (accessed June 16, 2015).Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1997. The Puzzle of Judicial Behavior. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2013. The Supreme Court. 11th ed. Los Angeles, CA: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Berry, William D., Berkman, Michael B., and Schneiderman, Stuart. 2000. “Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries.” American Political Science Review 94 (4): 859–74..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Fording, Richard C., Ringquist, Evan J., Hanson, Russell L., and Klarner, Carl. 2010. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States: A Re-Appraisal.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 10 (2): 117–35..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960–93.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (1): 327–48..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomberg Businessweek. 2005. “California Legislature Passes Yee's Violent Games Bill.” September 12, 2005. http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-09-12/california-legislature-passes-yees-violent-games-bill (accessed June 23, 2013).Google Scholar
Clucas, Richard A. 2007. “Legislative Professionalism and the Power of State House Leaders.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7 (1): 1–19..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colker, Ruth, and Scott, Kevin M.. 2002. “Dissing States? Invalidation of State Action During the Rehnquist Era.” Virginia Law Review 88:1301–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. 2012. “The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, Centennial Edition.” S. Doc. 112-9. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2012 (accessed June 15, 2015).Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A. (1957). “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker.” Journal of Public Law 6:279–95.Google Scholar
Dilger, Robert Jay, Krause, George A., and Moffett, Randolph R.. 1995. “State Legislative Professionalism and Gubernatorial Effectiveness, 1978-1991.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20 (4): 553–571..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Kobylka, Joseph F.. 1992. The Supreme Court and Legal Change: Abortion and the Death Penalty. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Martin, Andrew D., Segal, Jeffrey A., and Westerland, Chad. 2007. “The Judicial Common Space.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 23:303–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and O'Connor, Karen. 1988. “States and the Supreme Court: An Examination of Litigation Outcomes.” Social Science Quarterly 68:660–74.Google Scholar
Gallup. 2014. “Trust in Government.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/5392/trust-government.aspx (accessed June 6, 2014).Google Scholar
Gamm, Gerald, and Kousser, Thad. 2010. “Broad Bills or Particularistic Policy? Historical Patterns in American State Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 104:151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gates, John. 1987. “Partisan Realignment, Unconstitutional State Policies, and the U.S. Supreme Court, 1837–1964.” American Journal of Political Science 31(2): 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillman, H. (2002). How Parties Can Use the Courts to Advance Their Agendas: Federal Courts in the United States, 1875–91. American Political Science Review 96:511–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 1993. The Constitution Besieged: The Rise & Demise of Lochner Era Police Powers Jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Graber, M. 1993. “The Nonmajoritarian Difficulty: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary.” Studies in American Political Development 7:35–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Matthew E., and Black, Ryan C. 2013. “Keeping the Outliers in Line? Judicial Review of State Laws by the U.S. Supreme Court.” Social Science Quarterly 94 (2): 395–409..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamm, Keith E., Hedlund, Ronald D., and Post, Stephanie Shirley. 2011. “Committee Specialization in U.S. State Legislatures during the 20th Century: Do Legislatures Tap the Talents of Their Members?” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 11 (3): 299–324..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamm, Keith E., and Moncrief, Gary F.. 2012. “Legislative Politics in the States.” In Politics in the American States, eds. Gray, Virginia, Hanson, Russell, and Kousser, Thad. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 163–207.Google Scholar
Harden, Jeffrey J. 2011. “A Bootstrap Method for Conducting Statistical Inference with Clustered Data.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 11:223–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, Robert E., and Hamm, Keith. 1998. “Variations in District-Level Campaign Spending in State Legislatures.” In Campaign Finance in State Legislative Elections, eds. Thompson, Joel A. and Moncrief, Gary F.. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 59–79.Google Scholar
Kearney, Richard C., and Sheehan, Reginald S.. 1992. “Supreme Court Decision Making: The Impact of Court Composition on State and Local Government Litigation.” Journal of Politics 54 (4): 1008–25..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V. O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Kincaid, John, and Cole, Richard L.. 2008. “Public Opinion on Issues of Federalism in 2007: A Bush Plus?” Publius 38 (3): 469–87..Google Scholar
King, Gary, and Zeng, Langche. 2001. “Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data.” Political Analysis 9:137–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kousser, Thad. 2005. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State Legislative Professionalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laughlin, Gregory K. 2005–2006. “Playing Games with the First Amendment: Are Video Games Speech and May Minors' Access to Graphically Violent Video Games Be Restricted.” University of Richmond Law Review 40:481–546.Google Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R., and Phillips, Justin H.. 2012. “The Democratic Deficit in the States.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (1): 148–66..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, Stephanie A., and Corley, Pamela C.. 2013. “National Policy Preferences and Judicial Review of State Statutes.” Publius 43 (2): 151–78..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, Stephanie A., and Solberg, Rorie Spill. 2007. “Judicial Review by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts: Explaining Justices' Responses to Constitutional Challenges.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (1): 71–90..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maestas, Cherie. 2000. “Professional Legislatures and Ambitious Politicians: Policy Responsiveness of State Institutions.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24 (4): 663–90..Google Scholar
Miller, Banks. 2010. “Describing the State Solicitors General.” Judicature 93 (6): 238–46..Google Scholar
Owens, Ryan, and Wohlfarth, Patrick C.. 2014. “State Solicitors General, Appellate Expertise, and State Success Before the United States Supreme Court.” Law & Society Review 48 (3): 657–85..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, H. W. Jr. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pickerill, Mitchell J., and Clayton, Cornell W.. 2004. “The Rehnquist Court and the Political Dynamics of Federalism.” Perspectives on Politics 2:233–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 1998. “Recovering an Issue Space from a Set of Issue Scales.” American Journal of Political Science 42:954–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffer A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1998. “Membership Turnover and the Efficient Processing of Legislation.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 23 (1): 23–32..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 2007. “Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7 (2): 211–27..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentino, Nicholas A., and Sears, David O.. 2005. “Old Times There Are Not Forgotten: Race and Partisan Realignment in the Contemporary South.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (3): 672–88..CrossRefGoogle Scholar