You are on page 1of 34

Course Syllabus

Course Information

PSCI 7381 05A


Graduate Seminar on Judicial Politics (Summer 2008)
T/R 1-5 pm (Green 3.606)

Office Hours: I will not be available prior to class time, but will be available to students for
an hour after class either in my office or at the Pub. I will also be available by appointment,
which I recommend when we begin to discuss paper topics.

Professor Contact Information

Linda Camp Keith


972-883-6481
linda.keith@utdallas.edu
Green 3.232

Course Pre-requisites, Co-requisites, and/or Other Restrictions

This is a graduate course. Students should be enrolled in a graduate program or have


appropriate permissions.

Course Description

The purpose of this graduate seminar is to introduce graduate students to the political
science literature in judicial behavior and process. We will explore some of the most
important theoretical and methodological debates and developments in the subfield of law,
courts and judicial process in regard to the scientific study of judicial behavior and process.
The course will not look at case law and will not assess legal or constitutional theory, but will
assess the courts as political institutions.

Student Learning Objectives/Outcomes

Upon completing this course, students will be able to fulfill the following objectives:

1. Will understand the current theoretical and methodological debates in regard to judicial
behavior and judicial politics.

2. Will be able to assess and apply important theoretical and scholarly approaches to explain
judicial behavior and politics in the political context of the United States.

3. Will be able to engage in independent research in the subfield of law, courts and judicial
process.

Required Textbooks (other required readings listed below)


Epstein, Lee and Jack Knight. 1998. The Choices Judges Make. Washington, DC: Congressional
Quarterly Press.

Maltzman, Forest, James F. Spriggs III, and Paul Wahlbeck. 2000. Crafting Law on the
Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Segal, Jeffrey A. and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model
Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosenberg, Gerald. 1991. The Hollow Hope. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Frank B. Cross. 2007. Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Stanford University
Press.

RECOMMENDED books if law and courts is one of your research interests (other
recommended readings listed below):

Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, Harold J. Spaeth, and Thomas G. Walker. 2002. The Supreme
Court Compendium: Data, Decisions, and Developments. 2nd Edition. Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Quarterly.

Grading Policy

GRADING SCALE:

90-100% = A
80-89% = B
70-79% = C
Below 70% = F

GRADING COMPONENTS:

50% Research Paper


30% Two Critical Essays
20% Participation
PARTICIPATION: Students are expected to read all of the assigned readings and to come to
class prepared to contribute significantly to the discussion of these materials. Additionally,
each week all students are responsible for writing three potential discussion questions for the
readings. The questions should be thought-provoking and written to stimulate scholarly
conversation. The questions should be emailed to me as a Word document by 10 am on the
day of the assigned readings. I will compile a list that to be used by me and the class
facilitator(s) for that day. I will post copies of the list of questions one hour prior to class as
well.

CRITICAL ESSAYS: Students will be required to write two essays critically assessing one of the
specific areas of the literature we are covering in the seminar. The essays should be
approximately two to three pages, single space in length. These essays should critically assess
the contributions of readings within the issue area, examining the theoretical development of
that particular area and assessing the appropriateness of the methodology employed to test
the theoretical questions, as well as suggesting ways in which the research could be improved
or expanded upon in future work. Student(s) who write the critical review essay for the
week’s readings will be expected to facilitate class discussion of that week’s readings.
Students will sign up for two weeks the first session we meet. Papers are due at the
beginning of class. No late papers will be accepted.

RESEARCH PAPER:

Each student will write a research paper on judicial politics topic of your choice. I strongly
urge you to make an appointment to meet with me to discuss your research topic so we can
make sure that you have a manageable research question that you can address during our
time frame.

It is expected that your research paper will be an article-length manuscript (approximately 35


to 45 pages including all tables and other materials) that is suitable for submission (with the
goal of publication) in a political science or refereed public law journal, such as Judicature ,
Law & Society, and The Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

The paper should include 1) a title page and abstract, 2) an introduction that identifies the
research question and argues its significance, 3) a section that discusses and assesses the
relevant literature (what we know from past research that is relevant to your question) and
that places your research question within the literature, 4) a theory section that explains your
theory and discusses the hypotheses derived from it, 5) a data and methodology section that
explains how you test your hypotheses, 6) a results section that presents the empirical
findings, 7) a conclusion that summarizes your findings and discusses their implication,
discusses how your study contributes to our understanding of judicial politics, and where
applicable suggests direction for future work.

Over the course of the class we will discuss several databases (both for US courts as well as
those of other countries) that are widely available through the Internet which students may
use. Students are welcome to identify their own sources or to create their own data, as well,
keeping in mind the time constraints of the assignment.
Because of the compressed nature of this summer short course and the academic necessity of
producing valid research in a graduate course of this level, I have obtained approval to extend
the research paper due date until the end of the full summer session for those students who
wish to have a longer period of time to write their research paper. Student papers must be
turned in me by Thursday, August 7 at 1 pm which is the first day of the long session finals.
No late papers will be accepted but students may turn in papers any time prior to this date,
and I will endeavor to get early paper graded and the grade posted within one week, if at all
possible.

Course & Instructor Policies

Missed Class: If students have to miss class for a university-accepted reason, they must
prepare a critical review essay on the assigned readings for the class that was missed.
Students must contact me prior to the beginning of the missed class. At that point I will
assign a due date for the make-up paper will typically be no later than one week from the
missed class period. This is a short, short session, so try not to miss a class. It will be
extremely difficult to catch up. I will meet with students taking comps and we will come up
with a make-up solution appropriate for your circumstances.

WebCT: Students should consult WebCT for announcements and updates to the syllabus. I will
not keep the calendar running with assignment dates. I do not answer email through WebCt
email, chat rooms or discussion boards, but students are welcome to communicate with each
other using these tools. If you email me, use your UTD email and email me at my address
above.

Assignments & Academic Calendar: see end of syllabus

STANDARD UNIVERSITY POLICIES: Student Conduct & Discipline

Off-campus Instruction and Course The University of Texas System and


Activities The University of Texas at Dallas
have rules and regulations for the
Off-campus, out-of-state, and orderly and efficient conduct of
foreign instruction and activities their business. It is the
are subject to state law and responsibility of each student and
University policies and procedures each student organization to be
regarding travel and risk-related knowledgeable about the rules and
activities. Information regarding regulations which govern student
these rules and regulations may be conduct and activities. General
found at the website address information on student conduct and
http://www.utdallas.edu/Business discipline is contained in the UTD
Affairs/Travel_Risk_Activities.htm. publication, A to Z Guide, which is
Additional information is available provided to all registered students
from the office of the school dean. each academic year.
Below is a description of any travel
and/or risk-related activity The University of Texas at Dallas
associated with this course. administers student discipline
within the procedures of recognized degree, and/or the submission as
and established due process. one’s own work or material that is
Procedures are defined and not one’s own. As a general rule,
described in the Rules and scholastic dishonesty involves one
Regulations, Board of Regents, The of the following acts: cheating,
University of Texas System, Part 1, plagiarism, collusion and/or
Chapter VI, Section 3, and in Title falsifying academic records.
V, Rules on Student Services and Students suspected of academic
Activities of the university’s dishonesty are subject to
Handbook of Operating Procedures. disciplinary proceedings.
Copies of these rules and
regulations are available to Plagiarism, especially from the
students in the Office of the Dean web, from portions of papers for
of Students, where staff members other classes, and from any other
are available to assist students in source is unacceptable and will be
interpreting the rules and dealt with under the university’s
regulations (SU 1.602, 972/883- policy on plagiarism (see general
6391). catalog for details). This course
will use the resources of
A student at the university neither turnitin.com, which searches the
loses the rights nor escapes the web for possible plagiarism and is
responsibilities of citizenship. He over 90% effective.
or she is expected to obey federal,
state, and local laws as well as the Email Use
Regents’ Rules, university
regulations, and administrative The University of Texas at Dallas
rules. Students are subject to recognizes the value and efficiency
discipline for violating the of communication between
standards of conduct whether such faculty/staff and students through
conduct takes place on or off electronic mail. At the same time,
campus, or whether civil or criminal email raises some issues concerning
penalties are also imposed for such security and the identity of each
conduct. individual in an email exchange.
The university encourages all
Academic Integrity official student email
correspondence be sent only to a
The faculty expects from its student’s U.T. Dallas email address
students a high level of and that faculty and staff consider
responsibility and academic email from students official only if
honesty. Because the value of an it originates from a UTD student
academic degree depends upon the account. This allows the university
absolute integrity of the work done to maintain a high degree of
by the student for that degree, it is confidence in the identity of all
imperative that a student individual corresponding and the
demonstrate a high standard of security of the transmitted
individual honor in his or her information. UTD furnishes each
scholastic work. Scholastic student with a free email account
dishonesty includes, but is not that is to be used in all
limited to, statements, acts or communication with university
omissions related to applications for personnel. The Department of
enrollment or the award of a Information Resources at U.T.
Dallas provides a method for written response provided by the
students to have their U.T. Dallas respondent, the student may submit
mail forwarded to other accounts. a written appeal to the School
Dean. If the grievance is not
Withdrawal from Class resolved by the School Dean’s
decision, the student may make a
The administration of this written appeal to the Dean of
institution has set deadlines for Graduate or Undergraduate
withdrawal of any college-level Education, and the deal will appoint
courses. These dates and times are and convene an Academic Appeals
published in that semester's course Panel. The decision of the
catalog. Administration procedures Academic Appeals Panel is final.
must be followed. It is the student's The results of the academic appeals
responsibility to handle withdrawal process will be distributed to all
requirements from any class. In involved parties.
other words, I cannot drop or
withdraw any student. You must do Copies of these rules and
the proper paperwork to ensure regulations are available to
that you will not receive a final students in the Office of the Dean
grade of "F" in a course if you of Students, where staff members
choose not to attend the class once are available to assist students in
you are enrolled. interpreting the rules and
regulations.
Student Grievance Procedures
Incomplete Grade Policy
Procedures for student grievances
are found in Title V, Rules on As per university policy, incomplete
Student Services and Activities, of grades will be granted only for work
the university’s Handbook of unavoidably missed at the
Operating Procedures. semester’s end and only if 70% of
the course work has been
In attempting to resolve any completed. An incomplete grade
student grievance regarding grades, must be resolved within eight (8)
evaluations, or other fulfillments of weeks from the first day of the
academic responsibility, it is the subsequent long semester. If the
obligation of the student first to required work to complete the
make a serious effort to resolve the course and to remove the
matter with the instructor, incomplete grade is not submitted
supervisor, administrator, or by the specified deadline, the
committee with whom the incomplete grade is changed
grievance originates (hereafter automatically to a grade of F.
called “the respondent”).
Individual faculty members retain Disability Services
primary responsibility for assigning
grades and evaluations. If the The goal of Disability Services is to
matter cannot be resolved at that provide students with disabilities
level, the grievance must be educational opportunities equal to
submitted in writing to the those of their non-disabled peers.
respondent with a copy of the Disability Services is located in
respondent’s School Dean. If the room 1.610 in the Student Union.
matter is not resolved by the Office hours are Monday and
Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.; The University of Texas at Dallas
Tuesday and Wednesday, 8:30 a.m. will excuse a student from class or
to 7:30 p.m.; and Friday, 8:30 a.m. other required activities for the
to 5:30 p.m. travel to and observance of a
religious holy day for a religion
The contact information for the whose places of worship are exempt
Office of Disability Services is: The from property tax under Section
University of Texas at Dallas, SU 22 11.20, Tax Code, Texas Code
PO Box 830688 Richardson, Texas Annotated.
75083-0688 or (972) 883-2098 (voice
or TTY) The student is encouraged to notify
the instructor or activity sponsor as
Essentially, the law requires that
soon as possible regarding the
colleges and universities make
absence, preferably in advance of
those reasonable adjustments
the assignment. The student, so
necessary to eliminate
excused, will be allowed to take
discrimination on the basis of
the exam or complete the
disability. For example, it may be
assignment within a reasonable
necessary to remove classroom
time after the absence: a period
prohibitions against tape recorders
equal to the length of the absence,
or animals (in the case of dog
up to a maximum of one week. A
guides) for students who are blind.
student who notifies the instructor
Occasionally an assignment
and completes any missed exam or
requirement may be substituted
assignment may not be penalized
(for example, a research paper
for the absence. A student who fails
versus an oral presentation for a
to complete the exam or
student who is hearing impaired).
assignment within the prescribed
Classes enrolled students with
period may receive a failing grade
mobility impairments may have to
for that exam or assignment. If a
be rescheduled in accessible
student or an instructor disagrees
facilities. The college or university
about the nature of the absence
may need to provide special
[i.e., for the purpose of observing a
services such as registration, note-
religious holy day] or if there is
taking, or mobility assistance.
similar disagreement about whether
It is the student’s responsibility to the student has been given a
notify his or her professors of the reasonable time to complete any
need for such an accommodation. missed assignments or
Disability Services provides students examinations, either the student or
with letters to present to faculty the instructor may request a ruling
members to verify that the student from the chief executive officer of
has a disability and needs the institution, or his or her
accommodations. Individuals designee. The chief executive
requiring special accommodation officer or designee must take into
should contact the professor after account the legislative intent of
class or during office hours. TEC 51.911(b), and the student and
instructor will abide by the decision
Religious Holy Days of the chief executive officer or
designee.
TOPICS AND READING ASSIGNMENTS:

Keep in mind that each four hour class represents 1 1/3 week during a regular semester.
Therefore we have all committed to reading the equivalent of almost three weeks worth of
graduate material in a single calendar week. I believe the format of the class will make this
possible but you MUST read ahead and not fall behind.

Class One: Tues. May 27

Introduction to the Scientific Study of Courts

REQUIRED READING (in suggested order):

• Pritchett, C. Herman. 1968. "Public Law and Judicial Behavior." Journal of Politics
30(May): 480-509.
• Gibson, James. 1983. “From Simplicity to Complexity: The Development of Theory in
the Study of Judicial Behavior.” Political Behavior 5(1):7-49.
• Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal
Model, Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 1-2.
• Epstein, Lee, Thomas G. Walker, and William J. Dixon. 1989. “The Supreme Court and
Criminal Justice Disputes: A Neo-Institutional Perspective.” American Journal of
Political Science 33(November):825-841.
• Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs, II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2000. Crafting Law on
the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge University Press,
Chapter 1.
• Ferejohn, John, Frances Rosenbluth, and Charles Shipan. 2004. “Comparative Judicial
Politics.” Manuscript available at: http://www.yaleuniversity.net/
polisci/rosenbluth/Papers/comparative%20judicial%20politics.pdf
• Friedman, Barry. 2006. “Taking Law Seriously.” Perspectives on Politics 4 (June):
261-276.

Other Suggested Readings (in chronological order):

• Schubert, Glendon A. 1958. “The Study of Judicial Decision-Making as an Aspect of


Political Behavior.” American Political Science Review 52(December): 1007-1025.
• Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1960. “The Analysis of Behavior Patterns on the United States
Supreme Court.”Journal of Politics 22(November): 629-653.
• Mendelson, Wallace. 1963. “The Neo-Behavioral Approach to the Judicial Process: A
Critique.”
• American Political Science Review 57(September): 593-603.
• Becker, Theodore L. 1967. “Judicial Structure and Its Political Functioning in Society:
New Approaches to Teaching and Research in Public Law.” Journal of Politics
29(May):302-333.
• Howard, J. Woodford. 1971. “Judicial Biography and the Behavioral Persuasion.”
American Political Science Review 65(September):704-715.
• Murphy, Walter, and Joseph Tanenhaus. 1972. The Study of Law. pp. 3-29.
• Pritchett, C. Herman. 1948. The Roosevelt Court: A Study in Judicial Politics and
Values 1937-1947. New York: MacMillan. Chapter 2.
• Smith, Rogers M. 1988. “Political Jurisprudence, the ‘New Institutionalism,’ and the
Future of Public Law.” American Political Science Review 82(March):89-108.
• Johnson, Charles A. 1990. “Strategies for Judicial Research: Soaking and Poking in the
Judiciary.” Judicature 73(December/January): 192-203.
• Gates, John B. 1991. “Theory, Methods, and the New Institutionalism in Judicial
Research.” In The American Courts: A Critical Assessment, ed. John B. Gates and
Charles A. Johnson. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
• Baum, Lawrence. 1997. The Puzzle of Judicial Behavior. University of Michigan Press:
Ann Arbor.

____________________________

Class Two: Thurs. May 29

The Appointment and Retirement Processes

Part One: NOMINATIONS and CONFIRMATION REQUIRED READINGS (in suggested order):

• Abraham, Henry J. 1999. Justices, Presidents, and Senators. Rowman and Littlefield,
pages, 1-53.
• Segal, Jeffrey A., Charles M. Cameron, and Albert D. Cover. 1992. “A Spatial Model of
Roll Call Voting: Senators, Constituents, Presidents, and Interest Groups in Supreme
Court Confirmations.” American Journal of Political Science 36(February):96-121.
• Guliuzza, Frank, Daniel J. Reagan, and David M. Barrett. 1994. “The Senate Judiciary
Committee and Supreme Court Nominees: Measuring the Dynamics of Confirmation
Criteria.” Journal of Politics 56(August):773-787.
• Ogundele, Ayo, and Linda Camp Keith. 1999. "A Re-examination of the Impact of the
Bork Nomination on Confirmation Criteria." Political Research Quarterly 52 (June
1999): 402-420.
• Johnson, Timothy R., and Jason M. Roberts. 2004. “Presidential Capital and the
Supreme Court Confirmation Process.” Journal of Politics 66 (August): 663-683.
• Epstein, Lee, René Lindstädt, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Chad Westerland. 2006. “The
Changing Dynamics of Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees.” Journal of Politics
68 (May): 296-307.

Part Two: RETIREMENT REQUIRED READINGS

• Spriggs, James F., and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 1995. “Calling It Quits: Strategic Retirement
on the Federal Courts of Appeals, 1893-1991.” Political Research Quarterly
48(September):573-597.
• Crowe, Justin, and Christopher F. Karpowitz. 2007. “Where Have You Gone, Sherman
Minton? The Decline of the Short-Term Supreme Court Justice.” Perspectives on
Politics 5(September): 425-445.

Other Suggested Readings (in chronological order):

• Watson, Richard A., Rondal G. Downing, and Frederick C. Spiegel. 1967. “Bar Politics,
Judicial Selection and the Representation of Social Interests.” American Political
Science Review 61(March): 54-71.
• Grossman, Joel B. 1964. “Federal Judicial Selection: The Work of the ABA
Committee.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 8(August): 221-254.
• Sulfidge, Wayne. 1980. “Ideology as a Factor in Senate Consideration of Supreme
Court Nominations.” Journal of Politics 42 (May): 560-567
• Walker, Thomas G. and Deborah J. Barrow. 1985. “The Diversification of the Federal
Bench: Policy and Process Ramifications.” Journal of Politics (May): 596-617
• Glick, Henry R., and Craig F. Emmert. 1987. “Selection Systems and Judicial
Characteristics: The Recruitment of State Supreme Court Justices.” Judicature
70(December/January): 228-235.
• Hall, William K., and Larry T. Aspin. 1987. “The Friends and Neighbors Effect in
Judicial Retention Elections.” Western Political Quarterly 40(December): 703-715.
• King, Gary. 1987. “Presidential Appointments to the Supreme Court.” American
Politics Quarterly 15(July): 373-386.
• Segal, Jeffrey A. 1987. “Senate Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices: Partisan
and Institutional Politics.” Journal of Politics 48 (November): 998-1015
• Emmert, Craig F., and Henry R. Glick. 1988. “The Selection of State Supreme Court
Justices.” American Politics Quarterly 16(October): 445-465.
• Squire, Peverill. 1988. “Politics and Personal Factors in the Retirement from the
United States Supreme Court.” Political Behavior 10 (June): 180-190.
• Aspin, Larry T., and William K. Hall. 1989. “Friends and Neighbors Voting in Judicial
Retention Elections: A Research Note Comparing Trial and Appellate Court Elections.”
Western Political Quarterly 42(December): 587-596.
• Barrow, Deborah J. and Gary Zuk. 1990. “An Institutional Analysis of Turnover in the
Lower Federal Courts, 1900-1987.” Journal of Politics 52 (May): 457-476.
• Overby, L. Marvin, Beth M. Henschen, Michael H. Walsh, and Julie Strauss. 1992.
“Courting Constituents? An Analysis of the Senate Confirmation Vote on Justice
Clarence Thomas.” American Political Science Review 86 (December): 997-1006.
• Marshall.” Political Research Quarterly 47 (December): 839-855.
• Hagle, Timothy M. 1993. “Strategic Retirements: A Political Model of Turnover on
the United States Supreme Court.” Political Behavior 15 (March): 25-48.
• Ruckman, P.S. 1993. “The Supreme Court, Critical Nominations, and the Senate
Confirmation Process.” Journal of Politics 55 (August): 793-805.
• Zuk, Gary, Gerard S. Gryski, and Deborah J. Barrow. 1993. “Partisan Transformation
of the Federal Judiciary, 1869-1992.” American Politics Quarterly 21 (October): 439-
457.
• Overby, L. Marvin, and Beth M. Henschen. 1994. “Race Trumps Gender? Women,
African-Americans, and the Senate Confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas.”
American Politics Quarterly 22 (January): 62-73.
• Overby, L. Marvin, Beth M. Henschen, Julie Strauss, and Michael H. Walsh. 1994.
“African-American Constituents and Supreme Court Nominees: An Examination of the
Senate Confirmation of Thurgood.”    Political Research Quarterly 47 (December): 839-
855. 
• Silverstein, Mark. 1994. Judicious Choices: The New Politics of Supreme Court
Nominations. New York: Norton.
• Barrow, Deborah J., Gary Zuk, and Gerard S. Gryski. 1996. The Federal Judiciary and
Institutional Change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Goldman, Sheldon. 1997. Picking Federal Judges: Lower Court Selection From
Roosevelt Through Reagan. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Caldeira, Gregory A. and John R. Wright. 1998. “Lobbying for Justice: Organized
Interests, Supreme Court Nominations, and the United States Senate.” American
Journal of Political Science 42 (April): 499-523.
• Krutz, Glen S., Richard Fleisher, and Jon R. Bond. 1998. “From Abe Fortas to Zoë
Baird: Why Some Presidential Nominations Fail in the Senate.” American Political
Science Review 92(December): 871-881.
• Flemming, Roy B., Michael C. MacLeod, and Jeffery Talbert. 1998. “Witnesses at the
Confirmations? The Appearance of Organized Interests at Senate Hearings on Federal
Judicial Appointments, 1945-1992.” Political Research Quarterly 51(September): 617-
631.
• Moraski, Bryon J., and Charles R. Shipan. 1999. “The Politics of Supreme Court
Nominations: A Theory of Institutional Constraints and Choices.” American Journal of
Political Science 43(October): 1069-1095.
• Yalof, David A. 1999. Pursuit of Justices: Presidential Politics and the Selection of
Supreme Court Nominees. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Nixon, David C. and J. David Haskin. 2000. “Judicial Retirement Strategies: The
Judge’s Role in Influencing Party Control of the Appellate Courts.” American Politics
Quarterly 28 (October): 458-489
• Segal, Jeffrey A., Richard J. Timpone, and Robert M. Howard. 2000. “Buyer Beware?
Presidential Success through Supreme Court Appointments.” Political Research
Quarterly 53 (September): 557-573.
• Segal, Jennifer A. 2000. “Representative Decision Making on the Federal Bench:
Clinton’s District Court Appointees.” Political Research Quarterly 53 (March): 137-
150.
• Zorn, Christopher J.W. and Steven R. Van Winkle. 2000. “A Competing Risks Model of
Supreme Court Vacancies, 1789-1992.” Political Behavior 22 (June): 145-166.
• Giles, Michael W., Virginia A. Hettinger, and Todd Peppers. 2001. “Picking Federal
Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas.” Political Research
Quarterly 54 (September): 623-641.
• Hall, Melinda Gann. 2001. “State Supreme Courts in American Democracy: Probing the
Myths of Judicial Reform.” American Political Science Review 95(June): 315-330.
• Hall, Melinda Gann. 2001. “Voluntary Retirements from State Supreme Courts:
Assessing Democratic Pressures to Relinquish the Bench.” Journal of Politics
63(November): 1112-1140.
• Hurwitz, Mark S. and Drew Noble Lanier. 2001. “Women and Minorities on State and
Federal Appellate Benches, 1985 and 1999.” Judicature 85 (September-October): 84-
92.
• Hutchings, Vincent L. 2001. “Political Context, Issue Salience, and Selective
Attentiveness: Constituent Knowledge of the Clarence Thomas Confirmation Vote.”
Journal of Politics 63(August): 846-868.
• Klein, David, and Lawrence Baum. 2001. “Ballot Information and Voting Decisions in
Judicial Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 54(December): 709-728.
• Nixon, David C. and David L. Goss. 2001. “Confirmation Delay for Vacancies on the
Circuit Courts of Appeals.” American Politics Research 29 (May): 246-274.
• Scherer, Nancy. 2001. “Who Drives the Ideological Makeup of the Lower Federal
Courts in a Divided Government?” Law and Society Review 35 (1): 191-218.
• Bell, Lauren Cohen. 2002. “Senatorial Discourtesy: The Senate’s Use of Delay to
Shape the Federal Judiciary.” Political Research Quarterly 55 (September): 589-607.
• Binder, Sarah A. and Forrest Maltzman. 2002. “Senatorial Delay in Confirming Federal
Judges, 1947-1998.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (January): 190-199.
• Johnson, Susan W. and Donald R. Songer. 2002. “The Influence of Presidential Versus
Home State Senatorial Preferences on the Policy Output of Judges on the United
States District Courts.” Law and Society Review 36 (3): 657-675.
• Martinek, Wendy L., Mark Kemper, and Steven R. Van Winkle. 2002. “To Advise and
Consent: The Senate and Lower Federal Court Nominations, 1977-1998.” Journal of
Politics 64 (May): 337-361.
• Bonneau, Chris W., and Melinda Gann Hall. 2003. “Predicting Challengers in State
Supreme Court Elections: Context and the Politics of Institutional Design.” Political
Research Quarterly 56(September): 337-349.
• Kuersten, Ashlyn and Donald Songer. 2003. “Presidential Success Through
Appointments to the United States Courts of Appeals.” American Politics Research 31
(March): 107-137.
• Shipan, Charles R. and Megan L. Shannon. 2003. “Delaying Justice(s): A Duration
Analysis of Supreme Court Confirmations.” American Journal of Political Science 47
(October): 654-668.
• Binder, Sarah A. and Forrest Maltzman. 2004. “The Limits of Senatorial Courtesy.”
Legislative Studies Quarterly 29 (February): 5-22.
• Bratton, Kathleen A. and Rorie L. Spill. 2004. “Moving Up the Judicial Ladder: The
Nomination of State Supreme Court Justices to the Federal Courts.” American Politics
Research 32 (March): 198-218.
• Massie, Tajuana D., Thomas G. Hansford, and Donald R. Songer. 2004. “The Timing of
Presidential Nominations to the Lower Federal Courts.” Political Research Quarterly
57 (March): 145-154.
• Epstein, Lee and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2005. Advice and Consent: The Politics of Judicial
Appointments. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Lott, John R., Jr. 2005. “The Judicial Confirmation Process: The Difficulty with
Being Smart.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 2 (November): 407-447.
• Szmer, John and Donald R. Songer. 2005. “The Effects of Information on the Accuracy
of Presidential Assessments of Supreme Court Nominee Preferences.” Political
Research Quarterly 58 (March): 151-160.
• Bonneau, Chris W., and Melinda Gann Hall. 2006. “Does Quality Matter? Challengers in
State Supreme Court Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 50(January):
20-33.
• Savchak, Elisha Carol, Thomas G. Hansford, Donald R. Songer, Kenneth L. Manning,
and Robert A. Carp. 2006. “Taking It to the Next Level: The Elevation of District
Court Judges to the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political Science 50
(April): 478-493.
• Krehbiel, Keith. 2007. “Supreme Court Appointments as a Move-the-Median Game.”
American Journal of Political Science 51 (April): 231-240.
• Rohde, David W. and Kenneth A. Shepsle. 2007. “Advising and Consenting in the 60-
Vote Senate: Strategic Appointments to the Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 69
(August): 664-677.
____________________________

Class Three: Tues. June 3

Setting the Agenda and Getting in the Court

REQUIRED READINGS (in suggested order):

• Perry, H.W. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Chapter 6.
• Segal, Jeffrey A. and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal
Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 6
• Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright. 1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda
Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review
82(December):1109-1127.
• Pacelle, Richard. 1991. The Transformation of the Supreme Court's Agenda. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press. Chapter 1 and 2.
• Boucher, Robert L., and Jeffrey A. Segal. 1995. “Supreme Court Justices as Strategic
Decision Makers: Aggressive Grants and Defensive Denials on the Vinson Court.”
Journal of Politics 57(August):824-837.
• O’Brien, David M. 1997. “The Rehnquist Court’s Shrinking Plenary Docket.” Judicature
81(September/October): 58-65.
• Caldeira, Gregory A., John R. Wright, and Christoper J.W. Zorn. 1999. “Strategic
Voting and Gatekeeping in the Supreme Court.” Journal of Law Economics and
Organization 15(October):549-72.
• Cameron, Charles M., Jeffrey A. Segal, and Donald Songer. 2000. "Strategic Auditing in
a Political Hierarchy: An Informational Model of the Supreme Court's Certiorari
Decisions." American Political Science Review 94(March):101-116.

Other Suggested Reading:

• Tanenhaus, Joseph, Marvin Schick, Matthew Muraskin, and Daniel Rosen. 1963. “The
Supreme Court’s Certiorari Decision: Cue Theory.” In Judicial Decision Making, ed.
Glendon Schubert. New York: Free Press.
• Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1972. “The Decision to Grant Certiorari as an Indicator to Decision
‘On the Merits.’” Polity 4(Summer): 429-447.
• Baum, Lawrence. 1977. “Policy Goals in Judicial Gatekeeping: A Proximity Model of
Discretionary Jurisdiction.” American Journal of Political Science 21(February): 13-35.
• Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1978. “Selecting Cases for Supreme Court Review: An Underdog
Model.”American Political Science Review 72(September): 902-910.
• Brenner, Saul. 1979. “The New Certiorari Game.” Journal of Politics 41(May): 649-655.
• Songer, Donald R. 1979. “Concern for Policy Output as a Cue for Supreme Court
Decisions on Certiorari.” Journal of Politics 41(November): 1185-1194.
• Provine, Doris Marie. 1980. Case Selection in the U.S. Supreme Court. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
• Teger, Stuart H., and Douglas Kosinski. 1980. “The Cue Theory of Supreme Court
Certiorari Jurisdiction: A Reconsideration.” Journal of Politics 42(August): 834-846.
• Armstrong, Virginia, and Charles A. Johnson. 1982. “Certiorari Decision Making by the
Warren and Burger Courts: Is Cue Theory Time Bound?” Polity 15(Fall): 141-150.
• Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1983. “Conflict with Supreme Court Precedents and the Granting of
Plenary Review.” Journal of Politics 45(May): 474-478.
• Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1984. “The Supreme Court’s Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a
Predictive Variable.” American Political Science Review 78(December): 901-911.
• Brenner, Saul, and John F. Krol. 1989. “Strategies in Certiorari Voting on the United
States Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 51(November): 828-840.
• Brenner, Saul, and Jan Palmer. 1990. “The Law Clerks’ Recommendations and Chief
Justice Vinson’s Vote on Certiorari.” American Politics Quarterly 18(January): 68-80.
• Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright. 1990. “The Discuss List: Agenda Building in
the Supreme Court.” Law and Society Review 24(3): 807-836.
• Jucewicz, Joseph, and Lawrence Baum. 1990. “Workload Influences on Supreme Court
Case Acceptance Rates, 1975-1984.” Western Political Quarterly 43(March): 123-135.
• Krol, John F., and Saul Brenner. 1990. “Strategies in Certiorari Voting on the United
States Supreme Court: A Reevaluation.” Western Political Quarterly 43(June): 335-
342.
• Baum, Lawrence. 1993. “Case Selection and Decisionmaking in the U.S. Supreme
Court.” Law and Society Review 27(3):443-59.
• McGuire, Kevin, and Gregory A. Caldeira. 1993. “Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the
Law of Obscenity: Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court.” American Political Science
Review 87(September): 717-726.
• McGuire, Kevin T. 1994. “Amici Curiae and Strategies for Gaining Access to the
Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 47(December): 821-837.
• Songer, Donald R., Charles M. Cameron, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 1995. “An Empirical Test
of the Rational-Actor Theory of Litigation.” Journal of Politics 57(November): 1119-
1129.
• Hermann, John R. 1997. “American Indian Interests and Supreme Court Agenda
Setting.” American Politics Quarterly 25(April):241-260.
• Flemming, Roy B., B. Dan Wood, and John Bohte. 1999. “Attention to Issues in a
System of Separated Powers: The Macrodynamics of American Policy Agendas.”
Journal of Politics 61(February): 76-108.
• Flemming, Roy B., and Glen S. Krutz. 2002. “Selecting Appeals for Judicial Review in
Canada:A Replication and Multivariate Test of American Hypotheses.” Journal of
Politics 63(February): 232-248.
• Baird, Vanessa A. 2004. “The Effect of Politically Salient Decisions on the U.S.
Supreme Court’s Agenda.” Journal of Politics 66 (August): 755-772.

____________________________

Class Four: Thurs. June 5

Judicial Decision Making: The Legal Approach

REQUIRED READINGS (in suggested order):

• Segal, Jeffrey A. and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal
Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ch. 7
• Segal, Jeffrey. 1984. “Predicting Supreme Court Decisions Probabilistically: The Search
and Seizure Cases.” American Political Science Review 78(December): 891-900.
• Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1996. “The Influence of Stare Decisis on
the Votes of United States Supreme Court Justices.” American Journal of Political
Science 40(November):971-1003.
• Brisbin, Richard A., Jr. 1996. “Slaying the Dragon: Segal, Spaeth and the Function
of Law in Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science
40(November):1004-1017.
• Knight, Jack, and Lee Epstein. 1996. “The Norm of Stare Decisis.” American
Journal of Political Science 40(November):1018-1035.
• Brenner, Saul, and Marc Stier. 1996. “Retesting Segal and Spaeth’s Stare Decisis
Model.” American Journal of Political Science 40(November):1036-1048.
• Songer, Donald R., and Stefanie A. Lindquist. 1996. “Not the Whole Story: The
Impact of Justices’ Values on Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Journal
of Political Science 40(November):1049-1063.
• Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1996. “Norms, Dragons, and Stare Decisis:
A Response.” American Journal of Political Science 40(November):1064-1082.
• Spriggs, James F., II, and Thomas G. Hansford. 2001. “Explaining the Overruling of
U.S. Supreme Court Precedent.” Journal of Politics 63(November): 1091-1111.
• Howard, Robert M. and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2002. “An Original Look at Originalism.”
Law and Society Review 36 (1): 113-137.
• Johnson, Timothy R., Paul J. Wahlbeck, and James F. Spriggs, II. 2006. “The Influence
of Oral Arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review
100(February): 99-113.

Other Recommended Readings (in chronological order)

• Wechsler, Herbert. 1959. “Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law.”


Harvard Law Review 73(November):1-35.
• Schmidhauser, John R. 1962. “Stare Decisis, Dissent, and the Background of the
Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” University of Toronto Law
Review. 14(2):194-212.
• Kort, Fred. 1963. “Content Analysis of Judicial Opinions and Rules of Law.” In
Judicial Decision Making, ed. Glendon Schubert. New York: Free Press.
• Schubert, Glendon. 1963. “Civilian Control and Stare Decisis in the Warren Court.”
In Judicial Decision-Making, ed. Glendon Schubert. New York: Free Press.
• Cardozo, Benjamin. 1964 [1921]. The Nature of the Judicial Process. Yale
University Press: New Haven, CT.
• Shapiro, Martin. 1965. “Stability and Change in Judicial Decision-Making:
Incrementalism or Stare Decisis.” Law in Transition Quarterly 2:134-157.
• Caldeira, Gregory A. 1985. “The Transmission of Legal Precedent: A Study of State
Supreme Courts.” American Political Science Review 79(March):178-193.
• Johnson, Charles A. 1985. “Citations to Authority in Supreme Court Opinions.” Law
and Policy 7(October):509-523.
• Heiner, Ronald A. 1986. “Imperfect Decisions and the Law: On the Evolution of
Legal Precedent and Rules.” Journal of Legal Studies 15(June):227-261.
• Johnson, Charles A. 1986. “Follow-Up Citations in the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Western Political Quarterly 39(September):538-547.
• Schauer, Frederick. 1987. “Precedent.” Stanford Law Review 39(February):571-
604.Collier, Charles W. 1988. “Precedent and Legal Authority: A Critical History.”
Wisconsin Law Review 1988:771-825.
• Caldeira, Gregory A. 1988. “Legal Precedent: Structures of Communication
Between State Supreme Courts.” Social Networks 10(March):29-55.
• Collier, Charles W. 1988. “Precedent and Legal Authority: A Critical History.”
Wisconsin Law Review 1988:771-825.
• Alexander, Larry. 1989. “Constrained by Precedent.” Southern California Law
Review 63(November):1-64.
• Gates, John B., and Glenn A. Phelps. 1991. “The Myth of Jurisprudence:
Interpretive Theory in the Constitutional Opinions of Justices Rehnquist and
Brennan.” Santa Clara Law Review 31(3):567-596.
• Gerhardt, Michael J. 1991. “The Role of Precedent in Constitutional
Decisionmaking and Theory.” George Washington Law Review 60(November):68-
147.
• Banks, Christopher. 1992. “The Supreme Court and Precedent: An Analysis of
Natural Courts and Reversal Trends.” Judicature. 75(February-March):262-268.
• Epstein, Lee and Joseph F. Kobylka. 1992. The Supreme Court and Legal Change:
Abortion and the Death Penalty. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina
Press.
• Spiller, Pablo T., and Matthew L. Spitzer. 1992. “Judicial Choice of Legal
Doctrines.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 8(March):8-45.
• Brenner, Saul, and Harold J. Spaeth. 1995. Stare Indecisis: The Alteration of
Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court, 1946-1992. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
• Maltz, Earl. 1992. “Abortion, Precedent, and the Constitution: A Comment on
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.” Notre Dame Law
Review 68(1):11-32.
• Eskridge, William N., and Philip P. Frickey. 1994. “Law as Equilibrium.” Harvard
Law Review 108(November):26-108.
• Murphy, Walter E., James E. Fleming, and Sotirios A. Barber. 1995. American
Constitutional Interpretation. Westbury, New York: The Foundation Press. pp. 23-
37, 383-421.
• Gates, John B., and Glenn A. Phelps. 1996. “Intentionalism in Constitutional
Opinions.” Political Research Quarterly 48(June):245-261
• Wahlbeck, Paul J. 1997. “The Life of the Law: Judicial Politics and Legal Change.”
Journal of Politics 59(August):778-802.
• Walsh, David J. 1997. “On the Meaning and Pattern of Legal Citations: Evidence
from State Wrongful Discharge Precedent Cases.” Law & Society Review 31(2):337-
360.
• Spaeth, Harold J., and Jeffrey A. Segal. 1999. Majority Rule or Minority Will:
Adherence to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Class Five: Tues June 10

Judicial Decision Making: The Attitudinal Approaches

REQUIRED READINGS (in suggested order):

• Segal, Jeffrey A. and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal
Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ch.3 and 8, sections of the
attitudinal model, other sections on rational choice will be next week.
• Segal, Jeffrey A., and Albert Cover. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of
U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83(June): 557-
565.
• George, Tracy E., and Lee Epstein. 1992. “On the Nature of Supreme Court
Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 86(June):323-337.
• Brace, Paul, and Melinda Gann Hall. 1995. “Studying Courts Comparatively: The
View From the American States.” Political Research Quarterly 48(March):5-29.
• Epstein, Lee, Valerie Hoekstra, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Harold J. Spaeth. 1998. “Do
Political Preferences Change? A Longitudinal Study of U.S. Supreme Court
Justices.” Journal of Politics 60(August): 801-818.
• Tate, C. Neal, and Roger Handberg. 1991. “Time Binding and Theory Building in
Personal Attribute Models of Supreme Court Voting Behavior, 1916-1988.”
American Journal of Political Science 35(May): 460-481.
• Cross—Chapter?

Other Recommended Readings (in chronological order):

• Holmes, Oliver Wendell. [1881] 1991. The Common Law. New York: Dover
Publications.
• Holmes, Oliver W. 1897. “The Path of the Law.” Harvard Law Review 10(March):
457-78.
• Pound, Roscoe. 1908. “Mechanical Jurisprudence.” Columbia Law Review 8: 605-
623.
• Pound, Roscoe. 1912. “The Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence.”
Harvard Law Review 25(April): 489-516.
• Cardozo, Benjamin. 1921. The Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
• Frank, Jerome. [1930] 1970. Law and the Modern Mind. Gloucester, MA: Peter
Smith.
• Pritchett, C. Herman. 1941. “Divisions of Opinion among Justices of the U.S.
Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 35(October): 890-898.
• Pritchett, C. Herman. 1942. “The Voting Behavior of the Supreme Court, 1941-
1942.” Journal of Politics 4(November): 491-506.
• Pritchett, C. Herman. 1948. “The Roosevelt Court: Votes and Values.” American
Political Science Review 42(February): 53-67.
• Danelski, David J. 1966. “Values as Variables in Judicial Decision-Making: Notes
Toward a Theory.” Vanderbilt Law Review 19(June): 721-740.
• Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1962. “The Political Party Variable in the Michigan Supreme
Court.” Journal of Public Law 11(2): 352-362.
• Rohde, David W., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San
Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
• Llewellyn, Karl N. [1930] 1991. The Bramble Bush. New York: Oceana Publications
• Epstein, Lee, and Carol Mershon. 1996. “Measuring Political Preferences.”
American Journal of Political Science 40(February): 261-294.
• Segal, Jeffrey A., Lee Epstein, Charles M. Cameron, and Harold J. Spaeth. 1995.
“Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Revisited.”
Journal of Politics 57(August):812-823.
• Baum, Lawrence. 1995. “Measuring Policy Change in the Rehnquist Court.”
American Politics Quarterly 23(July): 373-382.
• Hensley, Thomas R., and Christopher E. Smith. 1995. “Membership Change and
Voting Change: An Analysis of the Rehnquist Court’s 1986-1991 Terms.” Political
Research Quarterly 48(December): 837-856.
• Ringquist, Evan J., and Craig E. Emmert. 1999. “Judicial Policymaking in Published
and Unpublished Decisions: The Case of Environmental Civil Litigation.” Political
Research Quarterly 52(March): 7-37.
• Braman, Eileen. 2006. “Reasoning on the Threshold: Testing the Separability of
Preferences in Legal Decision Making.” Journal of Politics 68(May): 308-321.

Class Six: Thurs June 12

Strategic Approaches and Integrated Models

REQUIRED READINGS (in suggested order):

• Segal, Jeffrey A. and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal
Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ch.3 and 8, sections of the
rational choice model.
• Murphy, Walter F. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. Chapters 1-2, 8
• Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs, II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2000. Crafting Law
on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge University Press.
(Chapters to be assigned to each student.)
• Howard, Robert M. and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2004. “A Preference for Deference? The
Supreme Court and Judicial Review.” Political Research Quarterly 57(1): 131–43.
• Howard, Robert M. and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2004. “A Preference for Deference? The
Supreme Court and Judicial Review.” Political Research Quarterly 57(1): 131–43.
• Lindquist, Stephanie A. and Rorie Spill Solberg. 2007. “Judicial Review by the
Burger and Rehnquist Courts: Explaining Justices’ Responses to Constitutional
Challenges.” Political Research Quarterly 60: 71–90.
• Keith , Linda Camp. 2008. The U.S. Supreme Court and the Judicial Review of
Congress: Two Hundred Years in the Exercise of the Court's Most Potent Power. Lang
Publishers, Legal Studies Series, Ch. 5.

Other Recommended Readings—see Class Seven and Class Nine

Class Seven: Tues June 17

Bargaining and Accommodation, Coalition Formation, Opinion Assignment, and Separate


Opinions

REQUIRED READINGS (in suggested order)

• Epstein, Lee and Jack Knight. 1998. The Choices Judges Make. Washington, DC:
Congressional Quarterly Press. (Chapter 1 plus each student will be assigned an
additional chapter to read and discuss.)
• Maltzman, Forrest, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2004. “A Conditional Model of Opinion
Assignment on the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (December):
551-563.
• Cook, Beverly Blair. 1995. “Justice Brennan and the Institutionalization of Dissent
Assignment.” Judicature 79(July/August): 17-23.
• Johnson, Timothy R., James F. Spriggs, II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2005. “Passing
and Strategic Voting on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Law & Society Review 39(June):
349-377.
• Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Harold J. Spaeth. 2001. “The Norm of
Consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science
45(April): 362-377.
• Hettinger, Virginia A., Stefanie A. Lindquist, and Wendy L. Martinek. 2004.
“Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S.
Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political Science 48 (January): 123-137.
• Hoekstra, Valerie, and Timothy Johnson. 2003. “Delaying Justice: The Supreme
Court’s Decision to Hear Rearguments.” Political Research Quarterly
56(September): 351-360.

Other Recommended Readings (in chronological order)—see Class Seven and Class Nine

• Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1970. “The Use of Power in the Supreme Court: The Opinion
Assignments of Earl Warren, 1953-1960.” Journal of Public Law 19(Winter): 49-67.
• McLauchlan, William P. 1972. “Research Note: Ideology and Conflict in Supreme Court
Opinion Assignment, 1946-1962.” Western Political Quarterly 25(March): 16-27.
• Rohde, David W. 1972. “Policy Goals, Strategic Choice and Majority Opinion
Assignments in the U.S. Supreme Court.” Midwest Journal of Political Science
16(November): 652-682.
• Rathjen, Gregory James. 1974. “Policy Goals, Strategic Choice, and Majority Opinion
Assignments in the U.S. Supreme Court: A Replication.” American Journal of Political
Science 18(November): 713-724.
• Atkins, Burton M. 1974. “Opinion Assignment on the United States Courts of Appeals:
The Question of Issue Specialization.” Western Political Quarterly 27(September):
409-428.
• Giles, Michael W. 1977. “Equivalent Versus Minimum Winning Opinion Coalition Sizes:
A Test of Two Hypotheses.” American Journal of Political Science 21(May): 405-408.
• Rohde, David W. 1977. “Some Clarifications Regarding a Theory of Supreme Court
Coalition Formation.” American Journal of Political Science 21(May): 409-413.
• Slotnick, Elliot E. 1978. “The Chief Justices and Self-Assignment of Majority Opinions:
A Research Note.” Western Political Quarterly 31(June): 219-225.
• Slotnick, Elliot E. 1979. “Who Speaks for the Court? Majority Opinion Assignment from
Taft to Burger.” American Journal of Political Science 23(February): 60-77.
• Slotnick, Elliot E. 1979. “Judicial Career Patterns and Majority Opinion Assignment on
the Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 41(May): 640-648.
• Slotnick, Elliot E. 1979. “The Equality Principle and Majority Opinion Assignment on
the United States Supreme Court.” Polity 12(Winter): 318-332.
• Brenner, Saul. 1982. “Strategic Choice and Opinion Assignment on the U.S. Supreme
Court: A Reexamination.” Western Political Quarterly 35(June): 204-211.
• Brenner, Saul. 1984. “Issue Specialization as a Variable in Opinion Assignment.”
Journal of Politics 46(November): 1217-1225.
• Spaeth, Harold J. 1984. “Distributive Justice: Majority Opinion Assignments in the
Burger Court.” Judicature 67(December/January): 299-304.
• Brenner, Saul, and Harold J. Spaeth. 1986. “Issue Specialization in Majority Opinion
Assignment on the Burger Court.” Western Political Quarterly 39(September): 520-
527.
• Brenner, Saul, and Harold J. Spaeth. 1988. “Majority Opinion Assignment and the
Maintenance of the Original Coalition on the Warren Court.” American Journal of
Political Science 32(February): 72-81.
• Brenner, Saul, and Jan Palmer. 1988. “The Time Taken to Write Opinions as a
Determinant of Opinion Assignments.” Judicature 72(October/November): 179-184.
• Davis, Sue. 1990. “Power on the Court: Chief Justice Rehnquist’s Opinion
Assignments.” Judicature 74(August/September): 66-72.
• Hall, Melinda Gann. 1990. “Opinion Assignment Procedures and Conference Practices
in State Supreme Courts.” Judicature 73(December/January): 209-214.
• Maltzman, Forrest, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 1996. “May It Please the Chief? Opinion
Assignments in the Rehnquist Court.” American Journal of Political Science 40(May):
421-443
• Wood, Sandra L., and Gary M. Gansle. 1997. “Seeking A Strategy: William J. Brennan’s
Dissent Assignments.” Judicature 81(September/October): 73-75.
• Wood, Sandra, Linda Camp Keith, Drew Lanier, and Ayo Ogundele. 2000. "Opinion
Assignment and the Chief Justice: 1888-1940. Social Science Quarterly 81(Fall): 798-
809.
• Segal, Jeffrey A. and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal
Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ch.9.
• Arrington, Theodore S., and Saul Brenner. 2004. “Strategic Voting for Damage Control
on the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (December): 565-573.

Class Eight: Thurs June 19

ROLES: Leadership, Role Orientation and Freshman Effect

REQUIRED READINGS (in suggested order):

• Danelski, David J. 1989. “The Influence of the Chief Justice in the Decisional Process
of the Supreme Court.” In American Court Systems: Readings in Judicial Process and
Behavior. New York: Longman.
• Danelski, David J. and Jeanne C. Danelski. 1989. “Leadership in the Warren Court.”
In American Court Systems: Readings in Judicial Process and Behavior. New York:
Longman.
• Caldeira, Gregory A., and Christopher J.W. Zorn. 1998. “Of Time and Consensual
Norms in the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 42(July): 874-902.
• Haynie, Stacia L. 1992. “Leadership and Consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Journal of Politics 54(November): 1158-1169.
• Gibson, James L. 1981. “The Role Concept in Judicial Research.” Law and Policy
Quarterly 3(July): 291-311.
• Scheb, John M., II, Terry Bowen, and Gary Anderson. 1991. “Ideology, Role
Orientations, and Behavior in the State Courts of Last Resort.” American Politics
Quarterly 19(July): 324-335.
• Epstein, Lee, Kevin Quinn, Andrew D. Martin, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2008. “On the
Perils of Drawing Inferences about Supreme Court Justices from Their First Few
Years.” Judicature (Jan/Feb) 91(4): 168-179.
• Hurwitz, Mark S., and Joseph V. Stefko. 2004. “Acclimation and Attitudes: ‘Newcomer’
Justices and Precedent Conformance on the Supreme Court.” Political Research
Quarterly 57 (March): 121-129.
• Wood, Sandra L., Linda Camp Keith, Drew Noble Lanier, and Ayo Ogundele. 1998.
“‘Acclimation Effects’ for Supreme Court Justices: A Cross-Validation, 1888-1940.”
American Journal of Political Science 42(April): 690-697.
• Brenner, Saul, and Timothy M. Hagle. 1996. “Opinion Writing and the Acclimation
Effect.” Political Behavior 18(September): 235-261.
• Other

Recommended Readings (in chronological order):

• Becker, Theodore L. 1966. “A Survey Study of Hawaiian Judges: The Effect on


Decisions of Judicial Role Variations.” American Political Science Review
60(September): 677-680. Danelski, David J. 1968. “The Influence of the Chief Justice
in the Decisional Process of the Supreme Court.” In The Federal Judicial System:
Readings in Process and Behavior, ed. Thomas P. Jahnige and Sheldon Goldman. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Jaros, Dean, and Robert I. Mendelsohn. 1967. “The Judicial Role and Sentencing
Behavior.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 11(November): 471-488.
• James, Dorothy B. 1968. “Role Theory and the Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics
30(February): 160-186.
• Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1971. “Earl Warren and the Brown Decision.” Journal of Politics
33(August): 689-702.
• Flango, Victor Eugene, Lettie McSpadden Wenner, and Manfred W. Wenner. 1975.
“The Concept of Judicial Role: A Methodological Note.” American Journal of Political
Science 19(May): 277-289.
• Kritzer, Herbert M. 1975. “Sources of Role Orientations: ‘Reality or Chance?’” Journal
of Politics 37(November): 1048-1055.
• Gibson, James L. 1977. “Discriminant Functions, Role Orientations and Judicial
Behavior: Theoretical and Methodological Linkages.” Journal of Politics 39(November):
984-1007.
• Howard, J. Woodford. 1977. “Role Perceptions and Behavior in Three U.S. Courts of
Appeals.” Journal of Politics 39(November): 916-938.
• Gibson, James L. 1978. “Judges’ Role Orientations, Attitudes, and Decisions: An
Interactive Model.” American Political Science Review 72(September): 911-924.
• Gibson, James L. 1981. “The Role Concept in Judicial Research.” Law and Policy
Quarterly 3(July): 291-311.
• Gibson, James L. 1981. “Personality and Elite Political Behavior: The Influence of Self
Esteem on Judicial Decision Making.” Journal of Politics 43(February): 104-125.
• Heck, Edward V., and Melinda Gann Hall. 1981. “Bloc Voting and the Freshman Justice
Revisited.” Journal of Politics 43(August): 852-860.
• Scheb, John M., II, and Lee W. Ailshie. 1985. “Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the
‘Freshman Effect.’” Judicature 69(June/July): 9-12.
• Rubin, Thea F., and Albert P. Melone. 1988. “Justice Antonin Scalia: A First Year
Freshman Effect?” Judicature 72(August/September): 98-102.
• Kobylka, Joseph F. 1989. “Leadership on the Supreme Court of the United States:
Chief Justice Burger and the Establishment Clause.” Western Political Quarterly
42(December): 545-568.
• Scheb, John M., II, Thomas D. Ungs, Allison L. Hayes. 1989. “Judicial Role
Orientations, Attitudes and Decision Making: A Research Note.” Western Political
Quarterly 42(September): 427-435.
• Melone, Albert P. 1990. “Revisiting the Freshman Effect Hypothesis: The First Two
Terms of Justice Anthony Kennedy.” Judicature 74(June/July): 6-13.
• Allen, David W. 1991. “Voting Blocs and the Freshman Justice on State Supreme
Courts.” Western Political Quarterly 44(September): 727-747.
• Davis, Sue. 1991. “The Supreme Court: Rehnquist’s or Reagan’s?” Western Political
Quarterly 44(March): 87-99.
• Scheb, John M., II, Terry Bowen, and Gary Anderson. 1991. “Ideology, Role
Orientations, and Behavior in the State Courts of Last Resort.” American Politics
Quarterly 19(July): 324-335.
• Arledge, Paula C., and Edward V. Heck. 1992. “A Freshman Justice Confronts the
Constitution: Justice O’Connor and the First Amendment.” Western Political Quarterly
45(September): 761-772.
• Dudley, Robert L. 1993. “The Freshman Effect and Voting Alignments: A
Reexamination of Judicial Folklore.” American Politics Quarterly 21(July): 360-367.
• Hagle, Timothy. 1993. “‘Freshmen Effects’ for Supreme Court Justices.” American
Journal of Political Science 37(November): 1142-1157.
• Toma, E.F. 1996. “A Contractual Model of the Voting Behavior of the Supreme Court:
The Role of the Chief Justice.” International Review of Law and Economics
16(December): 433-447.

Class Nine: Tues June 24

Courts and the Political Environment (The Executive, Congress, Public Opinion)

REQUIRED READINGS (in suggested order):

• Bailey, Michael A., Brian Kamoie, and Forrest Maltzman. 2005. “Signals from the Tenth
Justice: The Political Role of the Solicitor General in Supreme Court Decision Making.”
American Journal of Political Science 49 (January): 72-85.
• King, Kimi Lynn, and James Meernik. 1999. “The Supreme Court and the Powers of the
Executive: The Adjudication of Foreign Policy.” Political Research Quarterly
52(December): 801-824.
• McGuire, Kevin T. 1998. “Explaining Executive Success in the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Political Research Quarterly 51(June): 505-526.
• Meernik, James, and Joseph Ignagni. 1997. “Judicial Review and Coordinate
Construction of the Constitution.” American Journal of Political Science 41(April):
447-467.
• Hansford, Thomas G., and David F. Damore. 2000. “Congressional Preferences,
Perceptions of Threat, and Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Politics
Quarterly 28(October): 490-510.
• Sala, Brian R., and James F. Spriggs, II. 2004. “Designing Tests of the Supreme Court
and the Separation of Powers.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (June): 197-208.
• Hoekstra, Valerie J. 2000. “The Supreme Court and Local Public Opinion.” American
Political Science Review 94(March): 89-100.
• Mishler, William, and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1993. “The Supreme Court as a
Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court
Decisions.” American Political Science Review 87(March): 87-101.
• Durr, Robert H., Andrew D. Martin, and Christina Wolbrecht. 2000. “Ideological
Divergence and Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political
Science 44(October): 768-776.

Recommended Readings (in chronological order):

• Pritchett, C. Herman. 1949. “The President and the Supreme Court.” Journal of
Politics 11(February): 80-92.
• Dahl, Robert A. 1957. “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a
National Policy-Maker.” Journal of Public Law 6(Fall):279-295.
• Murphy, Walter F. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. Chapters 5-6.
• Scigliano, Robert. 1971. The Supreme Court and the Presidency. New York: The Free
Press.
• Adamany, David W. 1973. “Legitimacy, Realigning Elections, and the Supreme Court.”
Wisconsin Law Review 1973(3): 790-846.
• Brady, David W., John Schmidhauser, and Larry L. Berg. 1973. “House Lawyers and
Support for the Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 35(August): 723-729
• Giles, Michael W. 1973. “Lawyers and the Supreme Court: A Comparative Look at Some
Attitudinal Linkages.” Journal of Politics 35(May): 480-486.
• Casper, Jonathan. 1976. “The Supreme Court and National Policy Making.” American
Political Science Review 70(March):50-63.
• Cook, Beverly B. 1977. “Public Opinion and Federal Judicial Policy.” American Journal
of Political Science 21(August): 567-600.
• Kritzer, Herbert M. 1978. “Political Correlates of the Behavior of Federal District
Judges: A ‘Best Case’ Analysis.” Journal of Politics 40(February): 25-58.
• Lehne, Richard, and John Reynolds. 1978. “The Impact of Judicial Activism on Public
Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 22(November): 896-904.
• Kritzer, Herbert M. 1979. “Federal Judges and their Political Environments: The
Influence of Public Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 23(February): 194-
207.
• Rowland, C.K., and Robert A. Carp. 1980. “A Longitudinal Study of Party Effects on
Federal District Court Policy Propensities.” American Journal of Political Science
24(May): 291-305.
• Tanenhaus, Joseph, and Walter F. Murphy. 1981. “Patterns of Public Support for the
Supreme Court: A Panel Study.” Journal of Politics 43(February): 24-39.
• Adamany, David W., and Joel B. Grossman. 1983. “Support for the Supreme Court as a
National Policymaker.” Law and Policy Quarterly 5(October): 405-437.
• Henschen, Beth. 1983. “Statutory Interpretations of the Supreme Court: Congressional
Response.” American Politics Quarterly 11(October): 441-458.
• Rowland, C.K., Robert A. Carp, and Ronald A. Stidham. 1984. “Judges’ Policy Choices
and the Value Basis of Judicial Appointments: A Comparison of Support for Criminal
Defendants among Nixon, Johnson, and Kennedy Appointees to the Federal District
Courts.” Journal of Politics 46(August): 886-902.
• Barnum, David G. 1985. “The Supreme Court and the Public Opinion: Judicial Decision
Making in the Post-New Deal Period.” Journal of Politics 47(May): 652-666.
• Lasser, William. 1985. “The Supreme Court in Periods of Critical Realignment.”
Journal of Politics 47(November): 1174-1187.
• Caldeira, Gregory A. 1986. “Neither the Purse Nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public
Confidence in the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 80(December):
1209-1226.
• Caldeira, Gregory A. 1987. “Public Opinion and the U.S. Supreme Court: FDR’s Court-
Packing Plan.” American Political Science Review 81(December): 1139-1153.
• Caplan, Lincoln. 1987. The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the Rule of Law.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Gates, John B. 1987. “Partisan Realignment, Unconstitutional State Policies, and the
U.S. Supreme Court, 1827-1964.” American Journal of Political Science 31(May): 259-
280.
• Marshall, Thomas R. 1987. “The Supreme Court as an Opinion Leader: Court Decisions
and the Mass Public.” American Politics Quarterly 15(January): 147-168.
• Gates, John B., and Jeffrey E. Cohen. 1988. “Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, and
Racial Equality Cases.” Political Behavior 10(Winter):22-36.
• Marshall, Thomas R. 1988. “Public Opinion, Representation, and the Modern Supreme
Court.” American Politics Quarterly 16(July): 296-316.
• Rowland, C.K., Donald R. Songer, and Robert A. Carp. 1988. “Presidential Effects on
Criminal Justice in the Lower Federal Courts: The Reagan Judges.” Law and Society
Review 22(1): 191-200.
• Segal, Jeffrey A. 1988. “Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General During the
Warren and Burger Courts: A Research Note.” Western Political Quarterly 41(March):
135-144.
• Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cheryl D. Reedy. 1988. “The Supreme Court and Sex
Discrimination: The Role of the Solicitor General.” Western Political Quarterly
41(September): 553-568.
• Ducat, Craig R., and Robert L. Dudley. 1989. “Federal District Judges and Presidential
Power During the Postwar Era.” Journal of Politics 51(February): 98-118.
• Epstein, Lee, Thomas G. Walker, and William J. Dixon. 1989. “The Supreme Court and
Criminal Justice Disputes: A Neo-Institutional Perspective.” American Journal of
Political Science 33(November): 825-841.
• Franklin, Charles H., and Liane C. Kosaki. 1989. “Republican Schoolmaster: The U.S.
Supreme Court, Public Opinion, and Abortion.” American Political Science Review
83(September): 751-771.
• Gottschall, Jon. 1989. “Reagan’s Appointments to the U.S. Courts of Appeal.” In
American Court Systems, 2nd ed., ed. Sheldon Goldman and Austin Sarat. New York:
Longman.
• Henschen, Beth M., and Edward I. Sidlow. 1989. “The Supreme Court and the
Congressional Agenda-Setting Process.” Journal of Law and Politics 5(Summer): 685-
724.
• Marshall, Thomas R. 1989. Public Opinion and the Supreme Court. Boston: Unwin
Hyman.
• Alumbaugh, Steve, and C.K. Rowland. 1990. “The Links between Platform-Based
Appointment Criteria and Trial Judges’ Abortion Judgments.” Judicature
74(October/November): 153-162.
• Gely, Rafael, and Pablo T. Spiller. 1990. “A Rational Choice Theory of Supreme Court
Statutory Decisions with Applications to the State Farm and Grove City Cases.”
Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6(Fall): 263-300.
• Segal, Jeffrey A. 1990. “Supreme Court Support for the Solicitor General: The Effect of
Presidential Appointments.” Western Political Quarterly 43(March):137-152.
• Eskridge, William N., Jr. 1991. “Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation
Decisions.” Yale Law Journal 101(November): 331-417.
• Eskridge, William N., Jr. 1991. “Reneging on History? Playing the
Court/Congress/President Civil Rights Game.” California Law Review 79(May): 613-
684.
• Mondak, Jeffery J. 1991. “Substantive and Procedural Aspects of Supreme Court
Decisions as Determinants of Institutional Approval.” American Politics Quarterly
19(April): 174-188.
• Rowland, C.K., and Bridget Jeffery Todd. 1991. “Where You Stand Depends on Who
Sits: Platform Promises and Judicial Gatekeeping in the Federal District Courts.”
Journal of Politics 53(February): 175-185.
• Caldeira, Gregory A., and James L. Gibson. 1992. “The Etiology of Public Support for
the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 36(August): 635-664.
• Gely, Rafael, and Pablo T. Spiller. 1992. “The Political Economy of Supreme Court
Constitutional Decisions: The Case of Roosevelt’s Court-Packing Plan.” International
Review of Law and Economics 12(March): 45-67.
• Gibson, James L., and Gregory A. Caldeira. 1992. “Blacks and the United States
Supreme Court: Models of Diffuse Support.” Journal of Politics 54(November): 1120-
1145.
• Miller, Mark C. 1992. “Congressional Committees and the Federal Courts: A Neo-
Institutional Perspective.” Western Political Quarterly 45(December): 949-970.
• Mondak, Jeffery J. 1992. “Institutional Legitimacy, Policy Legitimacy, and the
Supreme Court.” American Politics Quarterly 20(October): 457-477.
• Spiller, Pablo T., and Rafael Gely. 1992. “Congressional Control or Judicial
Independence: The Determinants of U.S. Supreme Court Labor-Relations Decisions,
1949-1988.” Rand Journal of Economics 23(Winter): 463-492.
• Richardson, Lilliard E Jr., John M. Scheb, II. 1993. “Divided government and the
Supreme Court : Judicial behavior in civil rights and liberties cases, 1954-89.”
American Politics Quarterly 21(October): 458-472.
• Clinton, Robert Lowry. 1994. “Game Theory, Legal History, and the Origins of Judicial
Review: A Revisionist Analysis of Marbury v. Madison.” American Journal of Political
Science 38(May): 285-302.
• Ignagni, Joseph, and James Meernik. 1994. “Explaining Congressional Attempts to
Reverse Supreme Court Decisions.” Political Research Quarterly 47(June): 353-371.
• Mondak, Jeffery J. 1994. “Policy Legitimacy and the Supreme Court: The Sources and
Contexts of Legitimation.” Political Research Quarterly 47(September): 675-692.
• Norpoth, Helmut, Jeffrey A. Segal, William Mishler, and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1994.
“Popular Influence on Supreme Court Decisions--Comment/Reply.” American Political
Science Review 88(September): 711-724.
• Rodriguez, Daniel B. 1994. “The Positive Political Dimensions of Regulatory Reform”
Washington University Law Quarterly 72(Spring): 1-150.
• Hoekstra, Valerie. 1995. “The Supreme Court and Opinion Change: An Experimental
Study of the Court's Ability to Change Opinions.” American Politics Quarterly
23(January): 109-129.
• Link, Michael W. 1995. “Tracking Public Mood in the Supreme Court: Cross-Time
Analyses of Criminal Procedure and Civil Rights Cases.” Political Research Quarterly
48(March): 61-78.
• Meernik, James, and Joseph Ignagni. 1995. “Congressional Attacks on Supreme Court
Rulings Involving Unconstitutional State Laws.” Political Research Quarterly
48(March): 43-59.
• Clark, John A., and Kevin T. McGuire. 1996. “Congress, the Supreme Court, and the
Flag.” Political Research Quarterly 49(December): 771-781.
• Caldeira, Gregory A., and Charles E. Smith, Jr. 1996. “Campaigning for the Supreme
Court: The Dynamics of Public Opinion on the Thomas Nomination.” Journal of Politics
58(August): 655-681.
• Hoekstra, Valerie J., and Jeffrey A. Segal. 1996. “The Shepherding of Local Public
Opinion: The Supreme Court and Lamb’s Chapel.” Journal of Politics 58(November):
1079-1102.
• Knight, Jack, and Lee Epstein. 1996. “On the Struggle for Judicial Supremacy.” Law &
Society Review 30(1):87-120.
• Spiller, Pablo T., and Emerson H. Tiller. 1996. “Invitations to Override: Congressional
Reversals of Supreme Court Decisions.” International Review of Law and Economics
16(December): 503-521.
• Flemming, Roy B., John Bohte, and B. Dan Wood. 1997. “One Voice Among Many: The
Supreme Court’s Influence on Attentiveness to Issues in the United States, 1947-1992.”
American Journal of Political Science 41(October): 1224-1250.
• Flemming, Roy B., and B. Dan Wood. 1997. “The Public and Supreme Court: Individual
Justice Responsiveness to American Policy Moods.” American Journal of Political
Science 41(April): 468-498.
• Mondak, Jeffery J., and Shannon Ishiyama Smithey. 1997. “The Dynamics of Public
Support for the Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 59(November): 1114-1142.
• Segal, Jeffrey A. 1997. “Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of
Congress and Courts.” American Political Science Review 91(March): 28-44
• Gibson, James L., Gregory A. Caldeira, and Vanessa A. Baird. 1998. “On the Legitimacy
of National High Courts.” American Political Science Review 92(June): 343-358
• Grosskopf, Anke, and Jeffery J. Mondak. 1998. “Do Attitudes Toward Specific Supreme
Court Decisions Matter? The Impact of Webster and Texas v. Johnson on Public
Confidence in the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 51(September): 633-
654.
• Ignagni, Joseph, James Meernik, and Kimi Lynn King. 1998. “Statutory Construction
and Congressional Response.” American Politics Quarterly 26(October): 459-484.
• Johnson, Timothy R., and Andrew D. Martin. 1998. “The Public’s Conditional Response
to Supreme Court Decisions.” American Political Science Review 92(June): 299-309.
• Meinhold, Stephen S., and Steven A. Shull. 1998. “Policy Congruence Between the
President and the Solicitor General.” Political Research Quarterly 51(June): 527-537.
• Yates, Jeff, and Andrew Whitford. 1998. “Presidential Power and the United States
Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 51(June): 539-550.
• Hausegger, Lori, and Lawrence Baum. 1999. “Inviting Congressional Action: A Study of
Supreme Court Motivations in Statutory Interpretation.” American Journal of Political
Science 43(January): 162-185.
• Rogers, James R. 1999. “Legislative Incentives and Two-Tiered Judicial Review: A
Game Theoretic Reading of Carolene Products Footnote Four.” American Journal of
Political Science 43(October): 1096-1121.
• Segal, Jennifer A. 2000. “Representative Decision Making on the Federal Bench:
Clinton’s District Court Appointees.” Political Research Quarterly 53(March): 137-150.
• Baird, Vanessa A. 2001. “Building Institutional Legitimacy: The Role of Procedural
Justice.” Political Research Quarterly 54(June): 333-354.
• Martin, Andrew D. 2001. “Congressional Decision Making and the Separation of
Powers.” American Political Science Review 95(June): 361-378.
• Rogers, James R. 2001. “Information and Judicial Review: A Signaling Game of
Legislative-Judicial Interaction.” American Journal of Political Science 45(January):
84-99.
• Vanberg, Georg. 2001. “Legislative-Judicial Relations: A Game-Theoretic Approach to
Constitutional Review.” American Journal of Political Science 45(April): 346-361.
• Rogers, James R., and Georg Vanberg. 2002. “Judicial Advisory Opinions and
Legislative Outcomes in Comparative Perspective.” American Journal of Political
Science 46(April): 379-397.
• Songer, Donald R., and Martha Humphries Ginn. 2002. “Assessing the Impact of
Presidential and Home State Influences on Judicial Decisionmaking in the United States
Court of Appeals.” Political Research Quarterly 55(June): 299-328.
• Gibson, James L., Gregory A. Caldeira, and Lester Kenyatta Spence. 2003. “Measuring
Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political
Science 47(April): 354-367.
• Davis, Darren W., and Brian D. Silver. 2004. “Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion
in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America.” American Journal of Political
Science 48 (January): 28-46.
• Whittington, Keith E. 2005. “’Interpose Your Friendly Hand’: Political Supports for the
Exercise of Judicial Review by the United States Supreme Court.” American Political
Science Review 99(November): 583-596.

Class Ten: Thurs June 26

Courts and the Political Environment (Interest Groups) and the Litigation Environment
(Attorneys and Litigants)

REQUIRED READINGS (in suggested order):

• Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright. 1990. “Amici Curiae before the Supreme
Court: Who Participates, When, and How Much?” Journal of Politics 52(August): 782-
806.
• Spriggs, James F., II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 1997. “Amicus Curiae and the Role of
Information at the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 50(June): 365-386.
• Hansford, Thomas G. 2004. “Information Provision, Organizational Constraints, and the
Decision to Submit an Amicus Curiae Brief in a U.S. Supreme Court Case.” Political
Research Quarterly 57(June): 219-230.
• McGuire, Kevin T. 1995. “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of
Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success.” Journal of Politics 57(February): 187-196.
• McGuire, Kevin T., and Barbara Palmer. 1995. “Issue Fluidity on the U.S. Supreme
Court.” American Political Science Review 89(September): 691-702.
• Johnson, Timothy R. 2001. “Information, Oral Arguments, and Supreme Court Decision
Making.” American Politics Research 29(July): 331-351.
• Songer, Donald R., and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1992. “Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs
and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political
Science 36(February): 235-258.
• Zorn, Christopher J.W. 2002. “U.S. Government Litigation Strategies in the Federal
Appellate Courts.” Political Research Quarterly 55(March): 145-166.

Recommended Readings (in chronological order):

• Vose, Clement E. 1955. “NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases.” Western Reserve
Law Review 6(Winter): 101-145
• Krislov, Samuel. 1963. “The Amicus Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy.” Yale Law
Journal 72(March): 694-721.
• Barker, Lucius. 1967. “Third Parties in Litigation: A Systemic View of the Judicial
Function.” Journal of Politics 29(February): 41-69.
• Cortner, Richard C. 1968. “Strategies and Tactics of Litigants in Constitutional Cases.”
Journal of Public Law 17(2): 287-307.
• Canon, Bradley C., and Michael Giles. 1972. “Recurring Litigants: Federal Agencies
before the Supreme Court.” Western Political Quarterly 25: 183-191.
• Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits
of Legal Change.” Law and Society Review 9(Fall): 95-160.
• Sarat, Austin, and Joel B. Grossman. 1975. “Courts and Conflict Resolution: Problems
in the Mobilization of Adjudication.” American Political Science Review 69(December):
1200-1217.
• Orren, Karen. 1976. “Standing to Sue: Interest Group Conflict in the Federal Courts.”
American Political Science Review 70(September): 723-741.
• Rathjen, Gregory J., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1979. “Access to the Federal Courts: An
Analysis of Burger Court Policy Making.” American Journal of Political Science
23(May): 360-382.
• O’Connor, Karen. 1980. Women’s Organizations Use of the Courts. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
• Priest, George. 1980. “Selective Characteristics of Litigation.” Journal of Legal
Studies 9(March):399-427.
• Canon, Bradley C., and Lawrence Baum. 1981. “Patterns of Adoption of Tort Law
Innovations: An Application of Diffusion Theory to Judicial Doctrines.” American
Political Science Review 75(December): 975-987.
• Grossman, Joel B., Herbert M. Kritzer, Kristin Bumiller, Austin Sarat, and Stephen
McDougal. 1982. “Dimensions of Institutional Participation: Who Uses the Courts, and
How?” Journal of Politics 44(February): 86-114.
• Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1982. “Issue Fluidity in the U.S. Supreme Court: A Conceptual
Analysis.” In Supreme Court Activism and Restraint, ed. Stephen C. Halpern and
Charles M. Lamb. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
• McIntosh, Wayne V. 1983. “Private Use of a Public Forum: A Long Range View of the
Dispute Processing Role of Courts.” American Political Science Review 77(December):
991-1010.
• O’Connor, Karen, and Lee Epstein. 1983. “The Rise of Conservative Interest Group
Litigation.” Journal of Politics 45(May): 479-489.
• Zemans, Frances Kahn. 1983. “Legal Mobilization: The Neglected Role of the Law in
the Political Process.” American Political Science Review 77(September): 690-703.
• Priest, George L., and Benjamin Klein. 1984. “The Selection of Disputes for
Litigation.” Journal of Legal Studies 13(January):1-55.
• O’Connor, Karen, and Lee Epstein. 1985. “Bridging the Gap between Congress and the
Supreme Court: Interest Groups and the Erosion of the American Rule Governing
Awards of Attorneys’ Fees.” Western Political Quarterly 38(June): 238-249.
• Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1985. “Governmental Litigants, Underdogs, and Civil Liberties in the
Supreme Court: 1903-1968 Terms.” Journal of Politics 47(August): 899-909.
• Crowley, Donald W. 1987. “Judicial Review of Administrative Agencies: Does the Type
of Agency Matter.” Western Political Quarterly 40(June): 265-283.
• Kobylka, Joseph F. 1987. “A Court-Created Context for Group Litigation: Libertarian
Groups and Obscenity.” Journal of Politics 49(November): 1061-1078.
• Wheeler, Stanton, Bliss Cartwright , Robert A. Kagan, and Lawrence M. Friedman.
1987. “Do the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts,
1870-1970.” Law and Society Review 21(3): 403-445.
• Epstein, Lee, and Karen O’Connor. 1988. “States and the U.S. Supreme Court: An
Examination of Litigation Outcomes.” Social Science Quarterly 69(September): 660-
674.
• Lawrence, Susan E. 1989. “Legal Services before the Supreme Court.” Judicature
72(February/March): 266-273.
• Epstein, Lee, and Charles D. Hadley. 1990. “On the Treatment of Political Parties in
the U.S. Supreme Court, 1900-1986.” Journal of Politics 52(May): 413-432.
• Lawrence, Susan E. 1990. The Poor in Court: The Legal Services and Supreme Court
Decision Making. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Olson, Susan M. 1990. “Interest-Group Litigation in Federal District Court: Beyond the
Political Disadvantage Theory.” Journal of Politics 52(August): 854-882.
• Sheehan, Reginald S. 1990. “Administrative Agencies and the Court: A Reexamination
of the Impact of Agency Type on Decisional Outcomes.” Western Political Quarterly
43(December): 875-885.
• Atkins, Burton M. 1991. “Party Capability Theory as an Explanation for Intervention
Behavior in the English Court of Appeal.” American Journal of Political Science
35(November): 881-903.
• Epstein, Lee, and C.K. Rowland. 1991. “Debunking the Myth of Interest Group
Invincibility in the Courts.” American Political Science Review 85(March): 205-217.
• Kearney, Richard C., and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1992. “Supreme Court Decision Making:
The Impact of Court Composition on State and Local Government Litigation.” Journal
of Politics 54(November): 1008-1025.
• Sheehan, Reginald S. 1992. “Federal Agencies and the Supreme Court.” American
Politics Quarterly 20(October): 478-500.
• Sheehan, Reginald S. 1992. “Governmental Litigants, Underdogs, and Civil Liberties: A
Reassessment of a Trend in Supreme Court Decisionmaking.” Western Political
Quarterly 45(March): 27-39.
• Sheehan, Reginald S., William Mishler, and Donald R. Songer. 1992. “Ideology, Status,
and the Differential Success of Direct Parties before the Supreme Court.” American
Political Science Review 86(June): 464-471.
• Songer Donald R., and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1992. “Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs
and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political
Science 36(February): 235-258.
• Epstein, Lee. 1993. “Interest Group Litigation during the Rehnquist Court Era.”
Journal of Law and Politics 9(Summer): 639-717.
• McGuire, Kevin T. 1993. “Lawyers and the U.S. Supreme Court: The Washington
Community and Legal Elites.” American Journal of Political Science 37(May): 365-390.
• McGuire, Kevin T. 1993. The Supreme Court Bar: Legal Elites in the Washington
Community. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.
• Songer, Donald R., and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1993. “Interest Group Success in the
Courts: Amicus Participation in the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly
46(June): 339-354.
• Epstein, Lee. 1994. “Exploring the Participation of Organized Interests in State Court
Litigation.” Political Research Quarterly 47(June): 335-351.
• Haynie, Stacia L. 1994. “Resource Inequalities and Litigation Outcomes in the
Philippine Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 56(August): 752-772.
• McGuire, Kevin T. 1994. “Amici Curiae Strategies for Gaining Access to the Supreme
Court.” Political Research Quarterly 47(December): 821-837.
• Hansen, Wendy L., Renee J. Johnson, and Issac Unah. 1995. “Specialized Courts,
Bureaucratic Agencies, and the Politics of U.S. Trade Policy.” American Journal of
Political Science 39(August): 529-557.
• Haynie, Stacia L. 1995. “Resource Inequalities and Regional Variation in Litigation
Outcomes in the Philippine Supreme Court, 1961-1986.” Political Research Quarterly
48(June): 371-380.
• Songer, Donald R., and Ashlyn Kuersten. 1995. “The Success of Amici in State Supreme
Courts.” Political Research Quarterly 48(March): 31-42.
• Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Timothy Johnson. 1996. “The Claim of Issue
Creation on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review
90(December): 845-852.
• McGuire, Kevin T., and Barbara Palmer. 1996. “Issues, Agendas, and Decision Making
on the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 90(December): 853-865.
• Rossotti, Jack E., Laura Natelson, and Raymond Tatalovich. 1997. “Nonlegal Advice:
The Amicus Briefs in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.” Judicature
81(November/December): 118-121.
• Tauber, Steven C. 1998. “On Behalf of the Condemned? The Impact of the NAACP
Legal Defense Fund on Capital Punishment Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of
Appeals.” Political Research Quarterly 51(March): 191-219.
• Palmer, Barbara. 1999. “Issue Fluidity and Agenda Setting on the Warren Court.”
Political Research Quarterly 52(March): 39-65.
• Zorn, Christopher J.W. 2002. “U.S. Government Litigation Strategies in the Federal
Appellate Courts.” Political Research Quarterly 55(March): 145-166.

Class Eleven: Tues July 1 or Thurs July 3

Do Courts Matter? Impact, Implementation, and Compliance


REQUIRED READINGS (in suggested order):

• Rosenberg, Gerald. 1991. The Hollow Hope. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chapters 1-5 (chapters will be assigned).
• Songer, Donald R., Jeffrey A. Segal, and Charles M. Cameron. 1994. “The Hierarchy of
Justice: Testing a Principal-Agent Model of Supreme Court-Circuit Court Interactions.”
American Journal of Political Science 38(August): 673-696.
• Klein, David E., and Robert J. Hume. 2003. “Fear of Reversal as an Explanation of
Lower Court Compliance.” Law & Society Review 37(3): 579-606.
• Benesh, Sara C., and Malia Reddick. 2002. “Overruled: An Event History Analysis of
Lower Court Reaction to Supreme Court Alteration of Precedent.” Journal of Politics
64(May): 534-550.
• Flemming, Roy B., John Bohte, and B. Dan Wood. 1997. “One Voice Among Many: The
Supreme Court’s Influence on Attentiveness to Issues in the United States, 1947-92.”
American Journal of Political Science 41(October):1224-1250.
• Bond, Jon, and Charles A. Johnson. 1982. “Implementing a Permissive Policy: Hospital
Abortion Services after Roe v. Wade.” American Journal of Political Science
26(February): 1-24.
• Bowen, Lauren. 1995. “Attorney Advertising in the Wake of Bates v. State Bar of
Arizona (1977): A Study of Judicial Impact.” American Politics Quarterly 23(October):
461-484.

Recommended Readings (in chronological order):

• Murphy, Walter F. 1959. “Lower Court Checks on Supreme Court Power.” American
Political Science Review 53(December): 1017-1031.
• Sorauf, Francis J. 1959. “Zorach v. Clauson: The Impact of a Supreme Court Decision.”
American Political Science Review 53(September): 777-791.
• Murphy, Walter F. 1962. “Chief Justice Taft and the Lower Court Bureaucracy: A Study
in Judicial Administration.” Journal of Politics 24(August): 453-476.
• Birkby, Robert H. 1966. “The Supreme Court and the Bible Belt: Tennessee Reaction to
the ‘Schempp’ Decision.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 10(August): 304-319.
• Canon, Bradley C. 1973. “Reactions of State Supreme Courts to a U.S. Supreme Court
Civil Liberties Decision.” Law and Society Review 8:109-134.
• Levin, James P. 1973. “Constitutional Law and Obscene Literature: An Investigation of
Bookseller Practices.” In The Impact of Supreme Court Decisions, 2d ed., edited by
Theodore Becker and Malcolm Feeley. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Baum, Lawrence. 1976. “Implementation of Judicial Decisions: An Organizational
Analysis.” American Politics Quarterly 4(January): 86-114.
• Canon, Bradley C. 1977. “Testing the Effectiveness of Civil Liberties Policies at the
State and Federal Levels.” American Politics Quarterly 5(January): 57-82.
• Horowitz, Donald L. 1977. The Courts & Social Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings.
• Johnson, Charles A. 1979. “Lower Court Reactions to Supreme Court Decisions: A
Quantitative Examination.” American Journal of Political Science 23(November): 792-
804.
• Baum, Lawrence. 1980. “Responses of Federal District Judges to Court of Appeals
Policies: An Exploration.” Western Political Quarterly 33(June): 217-224.
• Giles, Michael, and Douglas Gatlin. 1980. “Mass Level Compliance with Public Policy:
The Case of School Desegregation.” Journal of Politics 42(August): 722-746.
• Gruhl, John. 1980. “The Supreme Court’s Impact on the Law of Libel: Compliance by
Lower Federal Courts.” Western Political Quarterly 33: 502-519.
• Hansen, Susan B. 1980. “State Implementation of Supreme Court Decisions: Abortion
Rates Since Roe v. Wade.” Journal of Politics 42(May): 372-395.
• Bond, Jon R., and Charles A. Johnson. 1982. “Implementing a Permissive Policy:
Hospital Abortion Services after Roe v. Wade.” American Journal of Political Science
26(February):1-24.
• Stidham, Ronald, and Robert A. Carp. 1982. “Trial Court Response to Supreme Court
Policy Changes: Three Case Studies.” Law and Policy Quarterly 4: 215-234.
• Way, Frank, and Barbara J. Burt. 1983. “Religious Marginality and the Free Exercise
Clause.” American Political Science Review 77(September): 652-665.
• Johnson, Charles A., and Bradley C. Canon. 1984. Judicial Policies: Implementation
and Impact. Washington: CQ Press.
• Feig, Douglas G. 1985. “Looking at Supreme Court Impact in Context: The Case of
Reapportionment and State Spending.” American Politics Quarterly 13(April): 167-187.
• Johnson, Charles A. 1986. “Follow-Up Citations in the U.S. Supreme Court.” Western
Political Quarterly 39(September): 538-547.
• Willison, David H. 1986. “Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions: Agency Cases
before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 1981-1984.” American
Politics Quarterly 14(October): 317-327.
• Johnson, Charles A. 1987. “Law, Politics, and Judicial Decision Making: Lower Federal
Court Uses of Supreme Court Decisions.” Law and Society Review 21(2): 325-340.
• Songer, Donald R. 1987. “The Impact of the Supreme Court on Trends in Economic
Policy Making in the United States Courts of Appeal.” Journal of Politics 49(August):
830-841.
• Dometrius, Nelson C., and Lee Sigelman. 1988. “Modeling the Impact of Supreme Court
Decisions: Wygant v. Board.” Journal of Politics 50(February): 131-149.
• Reid, Traciel V. 1988. “Judicial Policy-Making and Implementation: An Empirical
Examination.” Western Political Quarterly 41(September): 509-527.
• Songer, Donald R. 1988. “Alternative Approaches to the Study of Judicial Impact:
Miranda in Five State Courts.” American Politics Quarterly 16(October): 425-444.
• Marshall, Thomas R. 1989. “Policymaking and the Modern Court: When Do Supreme
Court Rulings Prevail?” Western Political Quarterly 42(December): 493-507.
• Songer, Donald R., and Reginald Sheehan. 1990. “Supreme Court Impact on
Compliance and Outcomes: Miranda and New York Times in the United States Courts of
Appeals.” Western Political Quarterly 43(June): 297-316.
• Pacelle, Richard L., and Lawrence Baum. 1992. “Supreme Court Authority in the
Judiciary: A Study of Remands.” American Politics Quarterly 20(April): 169-191.
• Baum, Lawrence. 1994. “Specialization and Authority Acceptance: The Supreme Court
and Lower Federal Courts.” Political Research Quarterly 47(September): 693-703.
• Glick, Henry R. 1994. “The Impact of Permissive Judicial Policies: The U.S. Supreme
Court and the Right to Die.” Political Research Quarterly 47(March): 207-222.
• Spriggs, James F., II. 1996. “The Supreme Court and Federal Administrative Agencies:
A Resource-Based Theory and Analysis of Judicial Impact.” American Journal of
Political Science 40(November): 1122-1151.
• Kilwein, John C., and Richard A. Brisbin. 1997. “Policy Convergence in a Federal
Judicial System: The Application of Intensified Scrutiny Doctrines by State Supreme
Courts.” American Journal of Political Science 41(January): 122-148.
• Spriggs, James F., II. 1997. “Explaining Federal Bureaucratic Compliance with Supreme
Court Opinions.” Political Research Quarterly 50(September): 567-593.
• Brent, James C. 1999. “An Agent and Two Principals: U.S. Court of Appeals Responses
to Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith and the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act.” American Politics Quarterly 27(April): 236-266.
• Humphries, Martha Anne, and Donald R. Songer. 1999. “Law and Politics in Judicial
Oversight of Federal Administrative Agencies.” Journal of Politics 61(February): 207-
220.
• Canes-Wrone, Brandice. 2003. “Bureaucratic Decisions and the Composition of the
Lower Courts.” American Journal of Political Science 47(April): 205-214.
• Haire, Susan B., Stefanie A. Lindquist, and Donald R. Songer. 2003. “Appellate Court
Supervision in the Federal Judiciary: A Hierarchical Perspective.” Law & Society
Review 37(3): 143-168.

These descriptions and timelines are subject to change at the discretion of the
Professor.