We offer a novel theory on Supreme Court impact that makes several key contributions beyond existing accounts. We argue that policy-oriented justices are particularly attentive to the impact of their precedents within the U.S. Courts of Appeals. We provide a framework in which both Supreme Court and circuit-level influences drive U.S. Courts of Appeals responses to the Supreme Court’s precedents. Principally, we argue that the Supreme Court’s use of its summary decisions, which explicitly reference its formally argued decisions, increase circuit court utility of the High Court’s precedents. We test our predictions using new data on appeals court responses to the Supreme Court’s precedents. The empirical results support our account and shed new light on the hierarchical dynamic within the American federal judiciary.
ArellanoM. (2003). Panel data econometrics. New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
3.
Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995)
4.
BeneshS. C. (2008). GVRs and their aftermath in the seventh circuit and beyond. Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 32, 659-681.
5.
BeneshS. C.JacobsonJ. K.SchaeferA.SimmonsN. (2014). Supreme Court GVRs and lower-court reactions. Justice System Journal, 35, 162-177.
6.
BeneshS. C.ReddickM. (2002). Overruled: An event history analysis of lower court reaction to Supreme Court alteration of precedent. The Journal of Politics, 64, 534-550. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2691860
7.
BowieJ. B.SongerD. R. (2009). Assessing the applicability of strategic theory to explain decision making on the courts of appeals. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 393-407.
8.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
9.
BruhlA.-A. P. (2009). The Supreme Court’s controversial GVRs—And an alternative. Michigan Law Review, 107, 711-755.
10.
CaldeiraG. A.WrightJ. R.ZornC. (1999). Sophisticated voting and gate-keeping in the Supreme Court. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 15, 549-572.
11.
CameronA. C.TrivediP. K. (2010). Microeconometrics using stata (Vol. 5). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
12.
CanonB. C.JohnsonC. A. (1998). Judicial policies: Impact and implementation. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
13.
CohenJ. M. (2002). Inside appellate courts: The impact of court organization on judicial decision making in the United States Courts of Appeals. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
14.
CollinsP. M. (2007). Lobbyists before the U.S. Supreme Court investigating the influence of amicus curiae briefs. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 55-70.
15.
CollinsT. A.CooperC. A. (2012). Case salience and media coverage of Supreme Court decisions toward a new measure. Political Research Quarterly, 65, 396-407.
16.
CorleyP. C. (2009). Uncertain precedent: Circuit court responses to Supreme Court plurality opinions. American Politics Research, 37, 30-49.
17.
CorleyP. C.CollinsP. M.CalvinB. (2011). Lower court influence on U.S. Supreme Court opinion content. The Journal of Politics, 73, 31-44. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23019271
18.
CorleyP. C.WedekingJ. (2014). The (dis)advantage of certainty: The importance of certainty in language. Law & Society Review, 48, 35-62.
19.
CrossF. (2007). Decision making in the U.S. Courts of appeals. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
20.
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)
21.
EpsteinL.MartinA. D.SegalJ. A.WesterlandC. (2007). The judicial common space. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 23, 303-325.
22.
EpsteinL.SegalJ. A. (2000). Measuring issue salience. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 66-83.
23.
HansfordT. G.SpriggsJ. F. (2006). The politics of precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
HellmanA. D. (1984). Granted, vacated, and remanded—Shedding light on a dark corner of Supreme Court practice. Judicature, 67, 389-401.
25.
HettingerV. A.LindquistS. A.MartinekW. L. (2003a). Acclimation effects and separate opinion writing in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 792-810.
26.
HettingerV. A.LindquistS. A.MartinekW. L. (2003b). Separate opinion writing on the United States Courts of Appeals. American Politics Research, 31(3), 215-250.
27.
HettingerV. A.LindquistS. A.MartinekW. L. (2004). Comparing attitudinal and strategic accounts of dissenting behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 123-137. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1519901
28.
HettingerV. A.LindquistS. A.MartinekW. L. (2006). Judging on a collegial court: Influences on federal appellate decision making. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
29.
JohnsonC. A. (1979). Lower court reactions to Supreme Court decisions: A quantitative examination. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 792-804. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2110807
30.
KleinD. E. (2002). Making law in the United States Courts of Appeals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
KleinD. E.HumeR. J. (2003). Fear of reversal as an explanation of lower court compliance. Law & Society Review, 37, 579-606. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1555079
32.
KornhauserL. A. (1992). Modeling collegial courts I: Path-dependence. International Review of Law and Economics, 12, 169-185.
33.
LongJ. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables (Vol. 7). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
LongJ. S.FreeseJ. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
35.
MaltzmanF.SpriggsJ. F.WahlbeckP. J. (2000). Crafting law on the Supreme Court: The collegial game. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
36.
MasoodA. S.SongerD. R. (2013). Reevaluating the implications of decision-making models: The role of summary decisions in U.S. Supreme Court analysis. Journal of Law and Courts, 1, 363-389. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/670745
37.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
38.
PerryH. W. (1991). Deciding to decide: Agenda setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
SegalJ. A.SpaethH. J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal account revisited. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40.
SegalJ. A.SpaethH. J.BeneshS. C. (2005). The Supreme Court in the American legal system. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41.
SongerD. R. (1988). Nonpublication in the United States district courts: Official criteria versus inferences from appellate review. Journal of Politics, 50, 206-215. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2131049
42.
SongerD. R.HaireS. (1992). Integrating alternative approaches to the study of judicial voting: Obscenity cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 963-982.
43.
SongerD. R.SegalJ. A.CameronC. M. (1994). The hierarchy of justice: Testing a principal-agent model of Supreme Court-circuit court interactions. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 673-696. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111602
44.
SongerD. R.SheehanR. S. (1990). Supreme Court impact on compliance and outcomes: Miranda and New York times in the United States Courts of Appeals. The Western Political Quarterly, 43, 297-316. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/448368
45.
SpaethH. J.SegalJ. A. (1999). Majority rule or minority will: Adherence to precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
46.
SpriggsJ. F.HansfordT. G. (2000). Measuring legal change the reliability and validity of Shepard’s citations. Political Research Quarterly, 53, 327-341.
47.
SpriggsJ. F.HansfordT. G. (2001). Explaining the overruling of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The Journal of Politics, 63, 1091-1111. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2691808
48.
StockJ. H.WatsonM. W. (2008). Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors for fixed effects panel data regression. Econometrica, 76, 155-174. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4502057
49.
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)
50.
WahlbeckP. J. (1998). The development of a legal rule: The federal common law of public nuisance. Law & Society Review, 32, 613-638. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/827758
51.
WedekingJ. (2012). Why do policy-motivated justices conform to unfavorable precedents-the role of social-legal backgrounds and precedential characteristics. Justice System Journal, 33, 69-95.
52.
WesterlandC.SegalJ. A.EpsteinL.CameronC. M.ComparatoS. (2010). Strategic defiance and compliance in the U.S. courts of appeals. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 891-905. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20788776
53.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2012). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
54.
ZornC.BowieJ. B. (2010). Ideological influences on decision making in the federal judicial hierarchy: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Politics, 72, 1212-1221.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
