GVPT 875   Judicial Policy Development: Spring 2009

Monday, 12:30-3:15    Tydings 1136

Wayne McIntosh

3140 Tydings Hall

wmcintosh@gvpt.umd.edu  

 

Course Outline and Readings 

Research Papers

Reference Material

 

Hardly any issue of political, economic, or social consequence arises in the US that is not addressed, sooner or later, by the courts. In some instances, the judicial agenda shifts with changing macro-conditions.  The decision agenda is affected by judicial choices/preferences, and it is also influenced by concerted litigation campaigns and other political actions.  Thus, a systematic understanding of how courts participate in the political process and how they affect political outcomes is  important to the study of  American politics.  While the bulk of the course will focus on the U.S. Supreme Court, some time will be devoted to state courts and federal courts below the U.S. Supreme Court. The seminar has two basic purposes: to understand how judges participate in the political policy process and to develop a strategy for engaging in publishable quality research within the broader field of American law and courts.  The first half of the semester we will examine critically a variety of research approaches to the central problems.  The second half of the term will be devoted primarily to research.     

  ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE

Reading and Discussion: I believe that teaching is a dialectical process in which everyone plays a major role. This requires careful preparation and active participation by me and by all seminar members. The format of the seminar will be open discussion. Readings are assigned in advance, and I will expect you to come to class sessions prepared to discuss them. I and one of you will lead the discussion each week, but contributions by all should be the norm. Classroom participation, including oral presentations, will be taken into account when determining final grades (20%). Hence, it is very much in your individual interest to participate in our collective consideration of the literature.

Students will also be asked to alternate in leading discussion at our seminar meetings. This will involve preparing a brief set of introductory and integrative remarks about the readings for that date. In addition, all students will be asked to submit questions or comments, designed to promote discussion, on the required readings for each  meeting. Comments and questions should be emailed to the instructor and to the rest of the class by 10pm on Mondays before our Tuesday class sessions.

This course assumes a basic familiarity with the structure and operation of American courts. Students who do not have this background should plan to read the following as soon as possible:

  • Lawrence Baum, American Courts: Process and Policy [6th Edition] (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2007).
  • David M. O’Brien, Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics [8th Edition] (New York: W.W. Norton, 2008).
     

REQUIRED TEXTS

Available at the bookstores:

  • Baum, Lawrence. 2006.  Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior.  Princeton Univ Press.
  • Collins, Paul M.  2008.  Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making.  Oxford University Press.
  • Keck, Thomas M.  2004.  The Most Activist Supreme Court in History: The Road to Modern Judicial Conservatism.  University of Chicago Press.
  • Klein, David E.  2002. Making Law in the United States Courts Of Appeals.  Cambridge Univ Press.
  • McCann, Michael W.  1994.  Rights At Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization.  Univ of Chicago Press.
  • McCloskey, Robert G.  2004.  The American Supreme Court (4th ed).  University of Chicago Press.
  • Rosenberg, Gerald N.  2008. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? (2nd ed). Univ of Chicago Press.
  • Scheingold, Stuart A.  2004.  The Politics of Rights: Lawyers, Public Policy, and Political Change (2nd ed).  University of Michigan Press.
  • Teles, Steven M.  2008.  The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law.  Princeton University Press.

Recommended:

  • Hansford, Thomas G., & James F. Spriggs.  2006. The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Princeton Univ Pr.

Journal articles are generally available in the  JSTOR database: http://www.jstor.org/search/AdvancedSearch .

Readings:

As you read each of the assigned materials, you should ask certain questions of each, and approach them with the primary aim of answering these questions:

·        What are the central questions that motivate the arguments?

·        What is the model of inquiry designed to resolve the questions?

·        What is the central argument?

·        What scholarly debates does the author engage?

·        What evidence does the author use to support his/her arguments?

·        What is the author’s understanding of the nature of stability and change (in institutions, in political power and authority, and the like) and the relationship between them?

·        How does the author’s “model” of stability and change differ from the models advanced by other authors?

·        Does the model or approach speak to other assigned readings?

·        Does the author ask important or interesting questions?

·        Does the author provide persuasive answers?

·        What are the book’s chief virtues?

·        What are the book’s chief weaknesses?

·        What would you identify as questions for further research that arise from the readings?

Research Papers                                                              Go Back

General Statement. Each seminar member will write a research paper on a particular set of questions related to the seminar focus. With my help you will select a general problem, and we will then narrow it down to a manageable research question. I will have more to say about this in class. I strongly suggest that you make an appointment by mid-February to discuss this with me.

Specific Instructions.

Within the first three weeks of the semester you should turn in a one-page proposal, describing what you want to look at and how you plan to do so. At the end of week 6, you must turn in a 7-10 page detailed research design. A first draft of the completed paper must be turned in by Friday, April 24; I will comment on and return the first drafts within one week (hopefully quicker).  My intention is to reserve our last couple of meetings to paper presentations and discussion.

A final, revised version of the paper is due at the end of the examination week. I will give an automatic extension through the end of June to students who so desire it; however, extensions beyond that date will be given only for extra-ordinary reasons.

Your paper will take the form of an article-length manuscript, suitable for publication in a political science or socio-legal journal. The following components are, thus, required:

1. general introduction, a section containing a research question and a statement of significance;

2. a theoretical account, a section containing a theoretically-driven answer to your question and demonstrating your knowledge of the existing literature;

3. expectations, a section proposing specific hypotheses you propose to test or a model you plan to assess;

4. measurements/data, a section explaining how you plan to assess the literature’s answer and the data sources from which you plan to derive your assessment;

5. analyses/results, a section presenting your findings (not required for this paper); and,

6. conclusion, a section summarizing your findings and how they are/are not compatible with the literature, and some suggestions for future research.
 

Course Outline/Readings                               Go Back

I. Introduction, January 26-February 2

Reading:

        For Further Consideration:

  • Smith, Rogers. 1988. “Political Jurisprudence, the ‘New Institutionalism,’ and the Future of Public Law,” 82 American Political Science Review 89-108.
  • Horwitz, Morton J.  1992.   The Transformation Of American Law, 1780-1860.
  • Hurst, James Willard. 1950. The Growth of American Law.
  • Cavanagh, Ralph and Austin Sarat. 1980 “Thinking About Courts: Toward and Beyond a Jurisprudence of Judicial Competence.” 14 Law & Society Review 371-420.
  • Black, Donald. 1989.  The Behavior of Law.
  • Knight, Jack. 1992. Institutions and Social Conflict.
  • Shapiro, Martin. 1981. Courts.
  • Epstein, Lee, and Gary King.  2002.  “The Rules of Inference.” 69 University of Chicago Law Review 1-133.

II. Judicial Power and Independence, February 9

Reading:

  • Federalist #78
  • Robert A. Dahl. 1957. “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy Maker,” Journal of Public Law 6: 279-95.
  • Casper JD. 1976. “The Supreme Court and National Policy Making.”  APSR 70: 50– 63
  • Mishler, William and Reginald Sheehan. 1993. “The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions. APSR 87:87-101.
  • Baum, Lawrence.  2003.  “The Supreme Court in American Politics.” 6 Annual Review of Political Science 161-180.
  • Graber, Mark A. 1993. “The Non-Majoritarian Difficulty: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary.” 7 Studies in American Political Development 35-72.

III. Judicial Power and Policymaking, February 16

Reading:

  • Keck, Thomas M.  2004.  The Most Activist Supreme Court in History: The Road to Modern Judicial Conservatism.  University of Chicago Press.

        For Further Consideration:

  • Sotirios Barber The Constitution of Judicial Power
  • Alexander Bickel The Least Dangerous Branch
  • Robert Bork, Coercing Virtue
  • Robert Bork, The Tempting of America
  • Edward S. Corwin The Doctrine of Judicial Review
  • Edward S. Corwin, The “Higher Law” Background of American Constitutional Law
  • William Crosskey Politics and the Constitution
  • Ronald Dworkin. Law’s Empire
  • Ronald Dworkin. Taking Rights Seriously
  • John Hart Ely Democracy and Distrust
  • Matthew Franck, Against the Imperial Judiciary
  • Charles Grove Haines The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy
  • Robert Jackson. The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy
  • Larry Kramer, The People Themselves
  • George Lovell.  Legislative Deferrals.
  • Keith Whittington Constitutional Interpretation

IV. To Whom do Judges Speak?, February 23

Reading:

  • Baum, Lawrence. 2006.  Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. 

For Further Consideration:

  • Baum, Lawrence. 1992. “Membership Change and Collective Voting Change in the United States Supreme Court.” 54 Journal of Politics 3-24.
  • Baum, Lawrence. 1997. The Puzzle of Judicial Behavior, pp. 23-88.
  • 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.” 60 Journal of Politics 801-818.
  • Segal, Jeffrey A. and Albert D. Cover. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” 83 American Political Science Review 557-566.
  • 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. 41 American Journal of Political Science 1224-1250.
  • Johnson, Timothy, and Andrew D. Martin. 1998. “The Public’s Conditional Response to Supreme Court Decisions.” 92 American Political Science Review 299:309.
  • Johnson, Charles A, and Bradley C Canon. 1984. Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact.

V. The Role of Precedent, March 2

Reading:

  • George, Tracey E. and Lee Epstein. 1992. “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making.” 86 American Political Science Review 323-337.
  • Symposium. 1996. “The Influence of Stare Decisis on the Votes of Supreme Court Justices.” 40 American Journal of Political Science 971-1082.
  • Haire, Susan B, Stefanie A Lindquist, and Donald R Songer. 2003. “Appellate Court Supervision in the Federal Judiciary: A Hierarchical Perspective.” Law & Society Review 37:143-68.

For Further Consideration:

  • Hansford, Thomas G., & James F. Spriggs.  2006. The Politics Of Precedent On The U.S. Supreme Court. 
  • Balkin, Jack M. 1986. “The Crystalline Structure of Legal Thought.” 39 Rutgers Law Review 1-110.
  • Caldeira, Gregory A. 1983. On the Reputation of State Supreme Courts. Political Behavior 83.
  • Caldeira, Gregory A. 1985. The Transmission of Legal Precedent: A Study of State Supreme Courts. American Political Science Review 79 (1):178-94.
  • Caldeira, Gregory A. 1988. Legal precedent: Structures of communication between state supreme courts. Social Networks 10 (1):29-55.
  • Caminker, Evan. 1994. Why Must Inferior Courts Obey Superior Court Precedents? Stanford Law Review 46:817-73.
  • 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 (4):975-87.
  • Cauthen, James N G. 2003. Horizontal Federalism in the New Judicial Federalism: A Preliminary Look at Citations. Albany Law Review (783):10.
  • Chandler, Seth J. 2005. The Network Structure of Supreme Court Jurisprudence. In Public Law and Legal Theory Series. Houston, TX: University of Houston Law Center.
  • Fowler, James H, and Sangick Jeon. 2005. The Authority of Supreme Court Precedent: A Network Analysis. Davis, CA.
  • Harris, Peter. 1982. Structural change in the communication of precedent among state supreme courts, 1870-1970. Social Networks 4 (3):201-212.
  • Harris, Peter. 1985. Difficult Cases and the Display of Authority. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 1 (1):209-21.
  • Johnson, Charles A. 1985. Citations to Authority in Supreme Court Opinions. Law and Policy 7:509.
  • Johnson, Charles A. 1986. Follow-up Citations in the US Supreme Court. Western Political Quarterly 39:538.
  • Knight, Jack, and Lee Epstein. 1996. The Norm of Stare Decisis. American Journal of Political Science 40 (4):1018-35.
  • Kornhauser, Lewis A. 1995. “Adjudication by a Resource-Constrained Team: Hierarchy and Precedent in a Judicial System.” 68 Stanford Law Review 817-873.
  • Kosma, Montgomery N. 1998. Measuring the Influence of Supreme Court Justices. Journal of Legal Studies 27 (2):333-72.
  • Landes, William M, Lawrence  Lessig, and Michael E Solimine. 1998. Judicial Influence: A Citation Analysis of Federal Courts of Appeals Judges. Journal of Legal Studies:82.
  • Landes, William M, and Richard A Posner. 1976. Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. In NBER Working Paper.
  • Merryman, John Henry. 1954. The Authority of Authority - What the California Supreme Court Cited in 1950. Stanford Law Review 6:613-73.
  • Merryman, John Henry. 1977. Toward a Theory of Citations: An Empirical Study of the Citation Practice of the California Supreme Court in 1950, 1960, and 1970. Southern California Law Review 50:381-428.
  • Mott, Rodney L. 1936. Judicial Influence (in Judicial Affairs). American Political Science Review 30 (2):295-315.
  • Post, David G., and Michael B. Eisen.  2000. “How Long is the Coastline of the Law? Thoughts on the Fractal Nature of Legal Systems.”  29 Journal of Legal Studies 545-584.
  • 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 (4):971-1003.
  • Spaeth, Harold J. and Jeffrey A. Segal. 1999. Majority Rule or Minority Will: Adherence to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Smith, Thomas A. 2005. The Web of Law. San Diego, CA.
  • Smithey, Shannon Ishiyama.  2001.  “A Tool, Not a Master: The Use of Foreign Case Law in Canada and South Africa.” 34 Comparative Political Studies 1188-1211.
  • Smyth, Russell.  2000.  “Judicial Citations – An Empirical Study Of Citation Practice In The New Zealand Court Of Appeal.” 31 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 847-896.
  • Spriggs II, James F, and Thomas G Hansford. 2002. The US Supreme Court’s Incorporation and Interpretation of Precedent. Law & Society Review 36 (1):139-60.
  • Talley, Eric.  1999.  “Precedential Cascades: An Appraisal.”  73 Southern California Law Review 87-137.
  • Walsh, Dennis J. 1997. On the Meaning and Pattern of Legal Citations: Evidence From State Wrongful Discharge Precedent Cases. Law and Society Review 31:337-60.
  • Spriggs, James F., II and Thomas G. Hansford, 2001, “Explaining the Overruling of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent.” 63 Journal of Politics 1091-1111.
  • Brenner, Saul and Harold J. Spaeth. 1995. Stare Indecisis: The Alteration of Precedent on the Supreme Court, 1946-1992. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brisbin, Richard A. 1996. “Slaying the Dragon, Segal, Spaeth and the Function of Law in Supreme Court Decision Making.” 40 American Journal of Political Science 1004-1017.
  • Knight, Jack and Lee Epstein. 1996. “The Norm of Stare Decisis.” 40 American Journal of Political Science 1018-1035.
  • Brenner, Saul and Marc Stier. 1996. “Retesting Segal and Spaeth’s Stare Decisis Model.” 40 American Journal of Political Science 1036-1048.

 

V: Do Courts Matter?  Maybe not, March 9 

Reading:

  • Rosenberg, Gerald N.  1993. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?  Univ of Chicago Pr.

 For Further Consideration:

  • Bickel, Alexander, The Least Dangerous Branch (1964)

·         Bickel, Alexander, The Supreme Court and the Idea of Progress (1970)

·         Horowitz, Donald, The Courts and Social Policy (1977)

  • Gregory A. Caldeira, “Neither the Purse Nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confidence in the Supreme Court,” American Political Science Review 80 (Dec. 1986):1209-1226

·         James L Gibson, Gregory A. Caldeira, and Vanessa Baird, “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts,” American Political Science Review 92 (1998):343

·         William Mishler and Reginald S. Sheehan, “The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions,” American Political Science Review 87 (Mar. 1993):87-101

·         Helmut Norpoth, Jeffrey Segal, William Mishler, and Reginald Sheehan, “Controversy:  Popular Influence on Supreme Court Decisions,” American Political Science Review 88 (Sep. 1994):711-724

·         Walter Murphy.  1964.  Elements of Judicial Strategy.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

·         Brenner, Saul.  1979.  The New Certiorari Game. 41 Journal of Politics 649-655.

Spring Break!!!!! March 16-20

 

VI: Do Courts Matter? Maybe so, March 23

Reading:

  • McCann, Michael W.  1994.  Rights At Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization.  Univ of Chicago Pr.

VII: Do Courts Matter? Probably so, March 30

Reading:

  • Scheingold, Stuart. 1974. The Politics of Rights.
  • Kagan, Robert A. 1994. “Do Lawyers Cause Adversarial Legalism? A Preliminary Inquiry.” 19 Law & Social Inquiry 1-62.

 For Further Consideration:

  • Manwaring, David R. 1962. Render unto Caesar: The Flag-Salute Controversy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Peltason, Jack W. 1961. Fifty-Eight Lonely Men: Southern Federal Judges And School Desegregation. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
  • Kluger, Richard, Simple Justice (1976)
  • 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 (3):673-96.
  • Songer, Donald R, and Reginald S Sheehan. 1990. Supreme Court Impact on Compliance and Outcomes: Miranda and New York Times in the United States Courts of Appeals. Western Political Quarterly 43:297-316.
  • Glick, Henry Robert. 1992. The Right To Die: Policy Innovation And Its Consequences. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
  • Epstein, Lee and Joseph F. Kobylka. 1992. The Supreme Court and Legal Change: Abortion and the Death Penalty.

VIII: Litigants and Litigation Campaigns, April 6

Reading:

IX: Litigants and Litigation Campaigns (cont), April 13

Reading:

 For Further Consideration:

  • Burstin, H.R., W.G. Johnson, S.R. Lipsitz, and T.A. Brennan. 1993. “Do the Poor Sue More? A Case Control Study of Malpractice Claims and Socioeconomic Status,” Journal of the American Medical Association 270 (October):1697-1701.
  • 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.
  • Canon, Bradley C., and Michael Giles. 1972. “Recurring Litigants: Federal Agencies before the Supreme Court.” Western Political Quarterly 25: 183-191.
  • Chong, Dennis. 1991. Collective Action and the Civil Rights Movement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Coates, Dan, and Steven Penrod. 1980-1. “Social Psychology and the Emergence of Disputes,” Law and Society Review, 15 (winter):655-680.
  • Coglianese, Cary. 1996. “Litigating within Relationships: Disputes and Disturbance in the Regulatory Process,” Law and Society Review 30 (December):735-765.
  • Cortner, Richard. 1968. “Strategies and Tactics of Litigants in Constitutional Cases.” Journal of Public Law 17 (summer):287-307.
  • Crowley, Donald W. 1987. “Judicial Review of Administrative Agencies: Does the Type of Agency Matter.” Western Political Quarterly 40(June): 265-283.
  • Doherty, Edmund G. and Carl O. Haven. 1977. “Medical Malpractice and Negligence: Sociodemographic characteristics of Claimants and Nonclaimants,” Journal of the American Medical Association 238 (October):1656-1658.
  • Ellickson, Robert. 1991. Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Engel, David. 1990. Litigation Across Space and Time: Courts, Conflict and Social Change. Law & Society Review 24(2):333-44.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Ewick, Patricia and Susan S. Silbey. 1998. The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Farber, Henry S. and Michelle J. White. 1991. “Medical Malpractice: An Empirical Examination of the Litigation Process,” The RAND Journal of Economics 22 (summer):199-217.
  • Felstiner, William L.F., Richard L. Abel, and Austin Sarat. 1980-1. “The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, and Claiming,” Law and Society Review 15 (winter):631-654.
  • Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law and Society Review 9(Fall): 95-160.
  • Grossman, Joel B. et al. 1982. “Dimensions of Institutional Participation: Who Uses the Courts, and How?,” Journal of Politics 4 (February):86-114.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Hensler, Deborah R., M.Susan Marquis, Allan F. Abrahamse, Sandra H. Berry, Patricia A. Ebener, Elizabeth Lewis, E.Allan Lind, Robert J. MacCoun, Willard G. Manning, Jeannette A. Rogowski, and Mary E. Vaiana. 1991. Compensation for Accidental Injuries in the United States. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
  • Hermann, John R. 1997. “American Indian Interests and Supreme Court Agenda Setting.” American Politics Quarterly 25:241-260.
  • Hunting, Roger B., and Gloria S. Neuwirth. 1962. Who Sues in New York City? A Study of Automobile Accident Claims. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Johnson, Timothy R.  2001.  “Information, Oral Arguments, and Supreme Court Decision Making.”  American Politics Research 29(July): 331-351. 
  • 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.
  • Kritzer, Herbert M. 1989. A Comparative Perspective on Settlement and Bargaining in Personal Injury Cases. Law & Social Inquiry 14(1):167-85.
  • Kritzer, Herbert M. 1990. The Justice Broker: Lawyers and Ordinary Litigation. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kritzer, Herbert M. and John Voelker. 1998. “Familiarity Breeds Respect: How Wisconsin Citizens View Their Courts,” Judicature 82 (2):58-64.
  • Kritzer, Herbert M. and Susan Silbey, eds. 2003. In Litigation: Do the “Haves” Still Come Out Ahead? Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Lawrence, Susan E. 1989. “Legal Services before the Supreme Court.” Judicature 72(February/March): 266-273.
  • Macaulay, Stewart. 1963. “Non-contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study,” American Sociological Review 28 (February):55-67.
  • Mather, Lynn. 1990. Dispute Processing and a Longitudinal Approach to Courts. Law & Society Review 24(2):357-70.
  • May, Marlynn L. and Daniel B. Stengel. 1990. “Who Sues Their Doctors? How Patients Handle Medical Grievances,” Law and Society Review 24 (February):105-120.
  • McGuire, Kevin T. 1993. The Supreme Court Bar: Legal Elites in the Washington Community. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.
  • 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 87:717-726.
  • McGuire, Kevin T., and Barbara Palmer. 1995. “Issue Fluidity on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 89(September): 691-702.
  • McGuire, Kevin T., and Barbara Palmer. 1996. “Issues, Agendas, and Decision Making on the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 90(December): 853-865.
  • 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.
  • McNulty, Molly. 1989. “Are Poor Patients Likely to Sue for Malpractice?,” Journal of the American Medical Association 262 (September):1391-2.
  • Miller, Richard E., and Austin Sarat. 1980-1. “Grievances, Claims, and Disputes: Assessing the Adversary Culture,” Law and Society Review 15(3-4):525-566.
  • Morgan, Pheobe A. 1999. “Risking Relationships: Understanding the Litigation Choices of Sexually Harassed Women,” Law and Society Review 33 (March):67-92.
  • Mullis, Jeffery. 1995. “Medical Malpractice, Social Structure, and Social Control,” Sociological Forum 10 (March):135-163.
  • Munger, Frank. 1990. Afterword: Studying Litigation and Social Change. Law & Society Review 24(2):595-616.
  • Munger, Frank. 1990. Trial Courts and Social Change: The Evolution of a Field of Study. Law & Society Review 24(2):217-26.
  • Orren, Karen. 1976. “Standing to Sue: Interest Group Conflict in the Federal Courts.” American Political Science Review 70(September): 723-741.
  • Palmer, Barbara. 1999. “Issue Fluidity and Agenda Setting on the Warren Court.” Political Research Quarterly 52(March): 39-65.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Scheppele, Kim, and Jack Walker. 1991. “The Litigation Strategies of Interest Groups.” In Mobilizing Interest Groups in America. Jack Walker, ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press: 335-372.
  • 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. 1990. “Administrative Agencies and the Court: A Reexamination of the Impact of Agency Type on Decisional Outcomes.” Western Political Quarterly 43(December): 875-885.
  • 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.
  • Sloan, Frank A. and Chee Ruey Hsieh. 1995. “Injury, Liability, and the Decision to File a Medical Malpractice Claim,” Law and Society Review 29 (September):413-435.
  • 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.
  • Tanenhaus, Joseph. 1960. “Supreme Court Attitudes Toward Federal Administrative Agencies.” Journal of Politics 22(August): 502-524.
  • Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1985. “Governmental Litigants, Underdogs, and Civil Liberties in the Supreme Court: 1903-1968 Terms.” Journal of Politics 47(August): 899-909.
  • 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.
  • Zemans, Frances Kahn. 1983. “Legal Mobilization: The Neglected Role of the Law in the Political Process.” American Political Science Review 77(September): 690-703.
  • Zorn, Christopher J.W. 2002. “U.S. Government Litigation Strategies in the Federal Appellate Courts.” Political Research Quarterly 55(March): 145-166.
     

VIII: Policy-making in lower courts, April 20

Reading:

 For Further Consideration: Other Courts in the System

STATE SUPREME COURTS
Reading:

·                     Caldeira, Gregory A. 1985 “The Transmission of Legal Precedent: A Study of State Supreme Courts.” 79 American Political Science Review 178-193.

·                     Brace, Paul, Laura Langer, and Melinda Gann Hall. 2000. “Measuring the preferences of state Supreme Court judges.” 62 Journal of Politics 387-413.

·                    Farole, Donald- J., Jr. 1999. “Reexamining Litigant Success in State Supreme Courts.” 33 Law and Society Review 1043-58.
Glick, Henry R. and George W. Pruet, Jr. 1986. “Dissent in State Supreme Courts: Patterns and Correlates of Conflict.” Pp. 199-214 in Sheldon Goldman and Charles M. Lamb (eds.), Judicial Conflict and Consensus: Behavioral Studies of American Appellate Courts. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

Hall, Melinda Gann. 1995. “Justices as Representatives: Elections and Judicial Politics in the American States.” 23 American Politics Quarterly 485-503.
Kagan, Robert A., Bliss Cartwright, Lawrence M. Friedman, and Stanton Wheeler. 1978. “The Evolution of State Supreme Courts,” 76 Michigan Law Review 961-1001.

Tarr, G. Alan and Mary Cornelia Aldis Porter. 1988. State Supreme Courts in State and Nation. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Brace, Paul and Melinda Gann Hall. 1995. “Studying Courts Comparatively: The View from the American States.” 48 Political Research Quarterly 5-29.
Brace, Paul R. and Melinda Gann Hall. 1997. “The Interplay of Preferences, Case Facts, Context and Rules in the Politics of Judicial Choice.” 59 Journal of Politics 1206-1231.

Farole, Donald J., Jr. 1998. Interest Groups and Judicial Federalism. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishing.
Flemming, Gregory N., David B. Holian, and Susan Gluck Mezey. 1998. “An Integrated Model of Privacy Decision Making in State Supreme Courts.” 26 American Politics Quarterly 35-58.
Glick, Henry R. and Kenneth N. Vines. 1973. State Court Systems. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, pp. 52-59.
Hall, Melinda Gann and Paul Brace. 1996. “Justices’ Response to Case Facts: An Interactive Model.” 24 American Politics Quarterly 236-261.
Hall, Melinda Gann. 1995. “Justices as Representatives: Elections and Judicial Politics in the American States.” 23 American Politics Quarterly 485-503.
Kagan, Robert A., Bliss Cartwright, Lawrence M. Friedman, and Stanton Wheeler. 1977. “The Business of State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970.” 30 Stanford Law Review 121-156.
Kilwein, John C. and Richard A. Brisbin, Jr. 1997. “Policy Convergence in a Federal Judicial System: The Application of Intensified Scrutiny Doctrines by State Supreme Courts.” 41 American Journal of Political Science 122-148.
Lindquist, Stefanie A. and Kevin Pybas. 1998. “State Supreme court Decisions to Overrule Precedent, 1965-1996.” 20 Justice System Journal 17-37.
Reed, Douglas S. 1998. “Twenty-Five Years after Rodriguez: School Finance Litigation and the Impact of the New Judicial Federalism.” 32 Law & Society Review 175-220.
Songer, Donald R. and Ashlyn Kuersten. 1995. “The Success of Amici in State Supreme Courts.” 48 Political Research Quarterly 31-42.
Traut, Carol Ann and Craig F. Emmert. 1998. “Expanding the Integrated Model of Judicial Decision Making: The California Justices and Capital Punishment.” 60 Journal of Politics 1166-1180.
Wenzel, James P., Shaun Bowler, and David J. Lanoue. 1997. “Legislating from the State Bench: A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Activism.” 25 American Politics Quarterly 363-379.



INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTS

Baum, Larry, Sheldon Goldman, and Austin Sarat. 1981-82. “The Evolution of Litigation in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 1865-1975.” 16 Law & Society Review 291-310.
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.” 27 American Politics Quarterly 236-68.

·                    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.” 48 American Journal of Political Science 123-137.
Howard, J. Woodford, Jr. 1977. “Role Perceptions and Behavior in Three U.S. Courts of Appeal.” 39 Journal of Politics 916-938.
Songer, Donald R. and Sue Davis. 1990. “The Impact of Party and Region on Voting Decisions in the United States Courts of Appeals, 1955-1986.” 43 Western Political Quarterly 319-334.
Songer, Donald R., Reginald S. Sheehan, and Susan Brodie Haire. 1999. “Do the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead over Time? Applying Galanter’s Framework to the Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 1925-1988.” 33 Law & Society Review 811-832.
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.” 38 American Journal of Political Science 673-696.
Songer, Donald R., Reginald S. Sheehan, and Susan B. Haire. 2000. Continuity and Change on the United States Courts of Appeals. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 103-130.
Haire, Susan B., Marth Anne Humphries, and Donald R. Songer. 2001. “The Voting Behavior of Clinton’s Courts of Appeals Appointees.” 84 Judicature 274-281.
Barrow, Deborah J. and Thomas G. Walker. 1988. A Court Divided: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Politics of Judicial Reform. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Goldman, Sheldon and Charles M. Lamb (eds.). 1986. Judicial Conflict and Consensus: Behavioral Studies of American Appellate Courts. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Howard, J. Woodford. 1981. The Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Songer, Donald R. and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1992. “Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals.” 36 American Journal of Political Science 235-58.
Unah, Isaac. 1998. The Courts of International Trade: Judicial Specialization, Expertise and Bureaucratic Policy-Making. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Unah, Isaac. 2001. “The Incidence and Structure of Conflict on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.” 23 Law & Policy 69-93.

TRIAL COURTS
 

·         Rowland, C.K. and Robert A.  Carp.  1996.  Politics and Judgment in Federal District Courts.

·         Carp, Robert A. and C.  K.  Rowland.  1983.  Policymaking and Politics in the Federal District Courts.

·         Kitchin, William.  1978.  Federal District Judges: An Analysis of Judicial Perceptions. 

·         Stidham, Ronald, Robert A.  Carp, and Donald R.  Songer.  1996.  The Voting Behavior of President Clinton’s Judicial Appointees.  80 Judicature 16-20. 

·         Olson, Susan M.  1992.  Studying Federal District Courts through Published Cases: A Research Note.  15 Justice System Journal 782-800.

  • Ashenfelter, Orley, Theodore Eisenberg, and Stewart J. Schwab. 1995. “Politics and the Judiciary: The Influence of Judicial Background on Case Outcomes.” 24 Journal of Legal Studies 257-281.
    Epstein, Lee and C.K. Rowland. 1991. “Debunking the Myth of Interest Group Invincibility in the Courts.” 85 American Political Science Review 205-217.
    Gibson, James L. 1978. “Judges’ Role Orientations, Attitudes, and Decisions: An Interactive Model.” 72 American Political Science Review 911-924.
    Nardulli, Peter F., James Eisenstein, and Roy B. Flemming. 1984. “Unraveling the Complexities of Decision-making In Face to Face Groups: A Contextual Analysis of Plea Bargained Sentences.” 78 American Political Science Review 912-928.
    Olson, Susan M. 1992. “Studying Federal District Courts through Published Cases: A Research Note.” 15 Justice System Journal 782-800.
    Rowland, C.K., and Robert A. Carp. 1996. Politics and Judgment in Federal District Courts. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, pp. 24-57.
    Carp, Robert A., Kenneth L. Manning, and Ronald Stidham. 2001. “President Clinton’s District Judges: “Extreme Liberals” or Just Plain Moderates?” 84 Judicature 282-288.

    Carp, Robert A. and C.K. Rowland. 1983. Policymaking and Politics in the Federal District Courts. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
    Dolbeare, Kenneth. 1967. Trial Courts and Urban Politics. New York: John Wiley.
    Jacob, Herbert. 1997. “The Governance of Trial Judges.” 31 Law & Society Review 3-30.
    Kitchin, William. 1978. Federal District Judges: An Analysis of Judicial Perceptions. Baltimore: Collage Press.
    Kritzer, Herbert. 1990. The Justice Broker: Lawyers and Ordinary Litigation. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Kritzer, Herbert. 1991. Let’s Make a Deal: Understanding the Negotiation Process in Ordinary Litigation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
    Kritzer, Herbert M. and Frances K. Zemans. 1993. “Local Legal Culture and the Control of Litigation.” 27 Law & Society Review 535-558.
    McIntosh, Wayne V. 1989. The Appeal of Civil Law. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
    Rosenthal, Douglas. 1974. Lawyer and Client: Who’s in Charge? New York: Russell Sage.
    Ross, H. Laurence. 1980. Settled Out of Court. New York: Aldine Publishing.
    Vidmar, Neil. 1984. “The Small Claims Court: A Reconceptualization of Disputes and an Empirical Investigation.” 18 Law & Society Review 515-550.


     

Paper drafts due, April 24

Paper presentation and discussion, May 4 & 11