Appellate courts deciding cases
Transcript of Appellate courts deciding cases
Appellate CourtsAppellate Courts
Deciding CasesDeciding Cases
Overview of Appellate Court Overview of Appellate Court Decision MakingDecision Making
First-level Appellate CourtsFirst-level Appellate Courts Easy casesEasy cases
Second-level Appellate CourtsSecond-level Appellate Courts
Factors Affecting Appellate Court Factors Affecting Appellate Court Decision MakingDecision Making
The Legal ModelThe Legal Model The Attitudinal ModelThe Attitudinal Model Rational Choice ModelsRational Choice Models
Separation of Powers ModelSeparation of Powers Model Institutional ModelInstitutional Model
Role TheoryRole Theory
The Legal ModelThe Legal Model
Uses text, intent, precedent, or stare Uses text, intent, precedent, or stare decisis as an explanation of court decision decisis as an explanation of court decision makingmaking
Values: reliability, efficiency, equalityValues: reliability, efficiency, equality Methods:Methods:
OriginalismOriginalism TextualismTextualism Intent of FramersIntent of Framers
The Attitudinal ModelThe Attitudinal Model Judges make decisions based in part on their personal Judges make decisions based in part on their personal
policy preferences rather than solely according to the policy preferences rather than solely according to the law.law.
Development of the Attitudinal Model in Political ScienceDevelopment of the Attitudinal Model in Political Science Legal RealistsLegal Realists Behavioral RevolutionBehavioral Revolution
Political science can ultimately become a science capable of Political science can ultimately become a science capable of prediction and explanationprediction and explanation
Political science should concern itself primarily, if not exclusively, Political science should concern itself primarily, if not exclusively, with phenomena which can actually be observedwith phenomena which can actually be observed
Data should be quantified and “findings” based on quantifiable dataData should be quantified and “findings” based on quantifiable data Research should be theory oriented and theory directedResearch should be theory oriented and theory directed
Herman Pritchett (1948)Herman Pritchett (1948) Glendon SchubertGlendon Schubert
The Attitudinal Model (cont’d)The Attitudinal Model (cont’d)Justices
1 2 3 4
Case 1 + + + +
Case 2 + + + -
Case 3 + + - -
Case 4 + - - -
Attitudinal Model (cont’d)Attitudinal Model (cont’d)
Liberal-------------------------------------------------------------------------Conservative
J1 J2 J3 J4
Attitudinal Model (cont’d)Attitudinal Model (cont’d)Percentages of Liberal Votes Cast by Justices, 1994 – 2004
Terms
Justice Liberal Votes
StevensGinsburgSouterBreyerO’ConnorKennedyRehnquistScaliaThomas
67.161.961.757.942.341.933.930.928.7
Source: U.S. Supreme Court Database, compiled by Harold Spaeth, Michigan State University at www.as.uky.edu/polsci/ulmerproject/sctdata.htm
Note: Cases are included if they were decided on the merits with full opinions and if votes could be classified as liberal or conservative. Criteria for classifying votes are those used in the database.
Attitudinal ModelAttitudinal Model Harold Spaeth (1976)Harold Spaeth (1976)
Psychological influencePsychological influence Attitude - “An enduring interrelated set of beliefs about an object or situation. For Attitude - “An enduring interrelated set of beliefs about an object or situation. For
social action to occur, at least two interacting attitudes, one concerning the attitude social action to occur, at least two interacting attitudes, one concerning the attitude object and the other concerning the situation must occur.”object and the other concerning the situation must occur.”
Rational Choice TheoryRational Choice Theory Segal and Cover (1989)Segal and Cover (1989) Martin and Quinn (2002)Martin and Quinn (2002)
Markov Chain Monte CarloMarkov Chain Monte Carlo Epstein, Martin, Segal, and Westerland (2007)Epstein, Martin, Segal, and Westerland (2007)
Judicial Common SpaceJudicial Common Space
The Attitudinal ModelThe Attitudinal Model
Marbury v. Madison Marbury v. Madison (1803)(1803) Vote: 6 – 0Vote: 6 – 0
Ex Parte McCardle Ex Parte McCardle (1869)(1869) Vote: 8 – 0Vote: 8 – 0
Powell v. Alabama Powell v. Alabama (1932)(1932) Vote: 7 – 2 Vote: 7 – 2
The Attitudinal ModelThe Attitudinal Model
Nixon v. United States Nixon v. United States (1993)(1993) Vote: 9 – 0 Vote: 9 – 0
Bush v. Gore (2000)Bush v. Gore (2000) Vote: 5 – 4 Vote: 5 – 4
Republican Party of Republican Party of Minnesota v. White Minnesota v. White (2002)(2002) Vote: 5 – 4 Vote: 5 – 4
Caperton v. Massey Caperton v. Massey Coal CompanyCoal Company Vote: 5 – 4 Vote: 5 – 4
Attitudinal ModelAttitudinal Model Why is the Attitudinal Model Particularly Applicable to the United Why is the Attitudinal Model Particularly Applicable to the United
States Supreme Court?States Supreme Court? The Supreme Court controls its docketThe Supreme Court controls its docket No electoral accountabilityNo electoral accountability Immune from political accountabilityImmune from political accountability
No justice ever removed from officeNo justice ever removed from office Only 5 Constitutional Amendments have ever overturned Supreme Court Only 5 Constitutional Amendments have ever overturned Supreme Court
Decisions (11Decisions (11 thth, 14, 14 thth, 16, 16 thth, 19, 19 thth, 26, 26 thth)) No ambition for higher officeNo ambition for higher office Supreme Court is the court of last resortSupreme Court is the court of last resort
Why are ideology and attitudes not as prevalent on other courts?Why are ideology and attitudes not as prevalent on other courts?
Separation of Powers ModelSeparation of Powers Model Courts make decisions with a concern for other actorsCourts make decisions with a concern for other actors
Other CourtsOther Courts LawyersLawyers Interest GroupsInterest Groups PresidentPresident CongressCongress Public OpinionPublic Opinion
Why?Why? Other branches of government can have a potential impact on what courts doOther branches of government can have a potential impact on what courts do
Determine court budgets/salariesDetermine court budgets/salaries Overturn (on statutory matters) or limit court decisionsOverturn (on statutory matters) or limit court decisions Pass legislation with regard to judges’ working conditionsPass legislation with regard to judges’ working conditions Promoting judgesPromoting judges
The public may have a potential impact over courtsThe public may have a potential impact over courts Is the judge elected?Is the judge elected?
Result: judges modify their preferred preferences in light of external factors.Result: judges modify their preferred preferences in light of external factors.
Separation of Powers (cont’d)Separation of Powers (cont’d)
Liberal Conservative
Law Status Quo
PresidentHouseSenate Supreme Court
Separation of Powers (cont’d)Separation of Powers (cont’d)
Liberal Conservative
Law Status Quo
President(.525)
House(-.107)
Senate(-.1285)
Supreme Court(.181)
Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
Separation of Powers (cont’d)Separation of Powers (cont’d)
Liberal Conservative
Law Status Quo
President(-.441)
House(-.112)
Senate(-.125)
Supreme Court(.101)
Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (1993)
Law Status Quo
Separation of Powers (cont’d)Separation of Powers (cont’d)
Liberal Conservative
Law Status Quo
President(-.441)
House(.122)
Senate(.173)
Supreme Court(.096)
City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)
Law Status Quo
Institutional PerspectiveInstitutional Perspective
Institutions influence the political strategies Institutions influence the political strategies adopted by individuals, firms, groups, and adopted by individuals, firms, groups, and governments, and thereby affect political governments, and thereby affect political behavior and policy outcomes.behavior and policy outcomes.
Strategic InteractionStrategic Interaction Two goals:Two goals:
Achieve majorityAchieve majority Achieve desired outcomeAchieve desired outcome
Example: Norm of ConsensusExample: Norm of Consensus Example: Institutional Differences between CourtsExample: Institutional Differences between Courts Example: Role of Chief JusticeExample: Role of Chief Justice
Role TheoryRole Theory
Gibson (1978)Gibson (1978) Justices view about what constitutes Justices view about what constitutes
appropriate behavior for the court and its appropriate behavior for the court and its membersmembers
Views regarding unanimous decisionsViews regarding unanimous decisions Views on lobbying colleaguesViews on lobbying colleagues Views on asking questions during oral argumentsViews on asking questions during oral arguments Views on the role of precedent and attitudesViews on the role of precedent and attitudes
The Supreme Court Process and The Supreme Court Process and Applying Decision Making ModelsApplying Decision Making Models
Oral ArgumentOral Argument Historical ChangesHistorical Changes ScheduleSchedule
Conference on the Conference on the MeritsMerits Role of the Chief JusticeRole of the Chief Justice
The Original Vote on The Original Vote on the Meritsthe Merits
Opinion AssignmentOpinion Assignment Four Factors that Four Factors that
influence opinion influence opinion assignment:assignment:
WorkloadWorkload IdeologyIdeology SpecializationSpecialization Self-assignmentSelf-assignment
The Supreme Court Process and Applying The Supreme Court Process and Applying Decision Making Models (cont’d)Decision Making Models (cont’d)
Draft OpinionsDraft Opinions Factors that influence the length of time to writeFactors that influence the length of time to write
The importance and divisiveness of the caseThe importance and divisiveness of the case The size of the voting majority at the conferenceThe size of the voting majority at the conference Whether one or more justices switched their voteWhether one or more justices switched their vote Whether a case had to be reassigned or carried over to Whether a case had to be reassigned or carried over to
another termanother term Reactions to Draft OpinionsReactions to Draft Opinions
Agree to joinAgree to join Agree to join with the condition of minor revisionsAgree to join with the condition of minor revisions Ask for substantive alterationsAsk for substantive alterations
““Dear Clarence, I disagree with everything in your opinion Dear Clarence, I disagree with everything in your opinion except your name, Justice Blackmun”except your name, Justice Blackmun”
The Supreme Court Process and Applying The Supreme Court Process and Applying Decision Making Models (cont’d)Decision Making Models (cont’d)
Changing VotesChanging Votes Final Vote on the Merits and Final Vote on the Merits and
Announcement of the OpinionAnnouncement of the Opinion