State Supreme Courts and the Effects of Statutory Constraint
Do state supreme court judges render decisions according to their ideological preferences, or are they constrained by the language of state statutes? Using data from the Judge-Level State Supreme Court Database, the authors analyze the votes of individual judges from 1995 to 1998 to determine whether their behavior is constrained by legislation. The results indicate that more detailed language (resulting in statutes with higher word counts) significantly limits the discretion afforded to liberal judges while simultaneously facilitating the ideological voting of their conservative colleagues.
Status characteristics and their intersectionality: majority opinion assignment in state supreme courts
ABSTRACT We test whether justices’ traits – race, gender, age, previous judicial experience, education, and tenure – are associated with opinion assignment patterns as suggested by status characteristics theory. Female justices were more likely to be asked to write the majority opinion, particularly if the case raised a “women’s issue.” In complex cases, however, both female and African American justices were less likely to be selected to write the majority opinion. Extending intersectionality perspectives, advances in age were associated with a decreased likelihood in women and African American justices receiving the assignment, though at distinct age ranges.
Designing Judicial Review: Interest Groups, Congress, and Communications Policy
Members of Congress and interest groups fiercely struggle over the seemingly unimportant procedural details of legislation such as the provisions for judicial review. Charles R. Shipan, in a study based on a detailed consideration of congressional debates over communications legislation, argues that the actors realize that current procedural choices will structure future alternatives and thus are willing to expend considerable resources over these issues. Using a rational choice framework, Shipan argues that provisions for judicial review, such as the specification of which agency actions are reviewable and which courts have review authority, are among the issues over which interested parties struggle because these issues will significantly affect the outcome of important future court action.Shipan tests his theory in a detailed exploration of the development of communications legislation during the 1920s and 1930s. This is a rich period in which to study the importance of judicial review provisions, for, while most political actors accepted the courts as part of the regulatory process, the concept of assigning broad decision-making powers to agencies was new and controversial. In addition, regulation of radio was both an important issue and one fraught with uncertainty, thus inducing members of Congress and interest groups to attempt to plan ahead for future actions. Shipan examines the motivations, actions, and choices of both interest groups and members of Congress. He then looks at the impact of the choices made on later court action in the communications legislation.This book will appeal to political scientists and legal scholars interested in the politics of judicial review, the courts, legislative politics, and communication policy.Charles R. Shipan is Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Iowa, and is a Robert Woods Johnson Fellow, University of Michigan.