POLS 530: Pro-Seminar in Public Law

Fall 2004

Faner Hall 3075

Thursday, 3:30 – 6:00 p.m.

 

Professor: Scott Comparato                                                                                   Phone: 453-3193

Office: Faner 3165                                                                                                   Email: scompara@siu.edu 

Office Hours: TR 8:00 – 11:00 a.m.                                                                      Web: www.siu.edu/~scompara

 

Course Description/Purpose

 

The aim of this seminar is to provide an introduction to the literature in the field of judicial politics public law.  Particular emphasis will be placed on the Supreme Court, however we will also cover research that has been conducted on lower federal courts and state supreme courts.  We will discuss some of the classics in the field of judicial politics as well as some of the more recent work that is being done by scholars of the courts.  My goals are to: (1) introduce graduate students to the literature in judicial process and behavior and, in so doing, discuss some of the most important debates (both past and present) in the sub-field; and (2) underscore the importance of sound theoretical arguments, careful research designs, and compelling empirical results.  This course is taught from the perspective that the study of courts should be (and currently is) closely connected to the theoretical and empirical traditions in American Politics.  As such, we will focus on the scientific study of judicial process and politics, analyzing the substantive, theoretical, and methodological developments in the field.

 

Required Reading/Texts

 

Most of the readings for this course will come from political science journals and law reviews.  The majority of these articles can be downloaded from the Internet at www.jstor.org.  Those that are not available on JSTOR will be placed in the POLS 530 mailbox in the main office mailroom, by the Friday prior to our next class meeting.  Please copy and return them as quickly as possible so that others will have access to them as well. 

 

You are expected to purchase the following texts for this course:

 

·     Epstein, Lee.  1995.  Contemplating Courts.  Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

·     Hoekstra, Valerie.  2003.  Public Reaction to Supreme Court Decisions.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

·     Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck.  2000.  Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

·     Perry, H.W.  1991.  Deciding to Decide.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

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

·     Segal, Jeffrey, and Harold Spaeth.  1999.  Majority Rule or Minority Will.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

 

For those of you who would like a basic introduction to the statistics that are used in much of the work that we will be reading, the following book is available at the bookstore and is entirely optional.

 

·     Berry, William D. and Mitchell S. Sanders.  2000.  Understanding Multivariate Research: A Primer for Beginning Social Scientists.  Boulder: Westview Press.

 

You may also wish to look at Walker and Epstein's The Supreme Court of the United States: An Introduction or Lawrence Baum's The Supreme Court for general information on the Supreme Court.  For information on lower courts, I suggest Judicial Process in America, 5th ed., by Robert Carp and Ronald Stidham, or Lawrence Baum’s American Courts, 4th ed.  Students seeking to conduct dissertation work in the field of law and courts should consider purchasing The Supreme Court Compendium, 3rd ed. (2003)  by Lee Epstein, et. al.  It contains valuable data and information on the Supreme Court and its environment.  At some point in the semester, we will spend some time discussing other sources from which you can obtain data on the courts, including the ICPSR, and directly from other scholars in the field.

 

Grades

 

Your grades will be based on seminar participation (20%) and four analysis papers (20% each).  Details are discussed below. There will be no incompletes given in this class except in cases of emergency or where university policy applies.

 

Grading

 

Analysis Paper 1:    100 points (20%)

Analysis Paper 2     100 points (20%)

Analysis Paper 3     100 points (20%)

Analysis Paper 4     100 points (20%)

Participation            100 points (20%)

Total                      500 points

 

Grading Scale (Percentages)

 

      A   90 – 100

      B   80 – 89

      C   70 – 79

      D   60 – 69

      F    59 – Below

 
Course Requirements

 

Class Participation (20%)

 

I expect you to attend seminar meetings and to be prepared for each session.  By prepared, I mean that you should have read the assigned materials and have considered how they complement and contrast.  Each week, one student will act as a discussion leader for the assigned readings.  I will always want to provide an introduction to the material for that week, and highlight some of the issues brought up in the analysis papers submitted.  At that point, the discussion leader will take over.  As discussion leader, you are responsible for emphasizing key themes and bringing to light controversies, and posing questions to direct our discussion.  Each student will be responsible for leading discussion several times throughout the semester.  The actual number will be dictated by the number of students in the class, but you will not be required to lead discussion on two consecutive weeks.  We will discuss these assignments at our first meeting.  You will meet with me the Tuesday preceding the class for which you will serve as the discussion leader to review the material and discuss your plans for that week.  On the weeks that you are a discussion leader, you must submit no fewer than five discussion questions that will guide our discussion for that week.  These questions are to be placed in the 530 mailbox (and one copy in my mailbox) no later than 8:00 a.m. the Wednesday before class.  All students should pick up those discussion questions on Wednesday, review them and prepare to engage the discussion leaders on those questions during class.  You should also come prepared to answer the following questions for each of the assigned readings:

 

            ·     What do you see as the major themes of the reading? 

            ·     What questions of clarification do you have? 

            ·     What criticisms do you have of the arguments laid bare in the readings?   

            ·     What does the reading contribute to your understanding of the Supreme Court and its environment?

 

The success of this class depends in large part, on the regular and robust participation of students.  Failure to show up and participate consistently will have an adverse impact on the learning experience of everyone in the class.  If you must miss class for some reason, you may receive an excused absence if you contact the instructor in advance, although I reserve the right to decide what constitutes a reasonable excuse.  Each unexcused absence will result in a ten point reduction in your overall grade.

 

Analysis  Papers (20% each)

 

All students will complete four papers (8-12 pages) that reviews the literature on a specific topic/area of study related to the Supreme Court.  You may choose any topic from the syllabus from the preceding four weeks.  You should view these papers as an opportunity to gain experience writing analysis/literature reviews that mimic the style and substance of the literature reviews you see in professional journals.  In these papers, you are responsible for covering all of the assigned reading for that week, as well as at least five additional sources from the Recommended Reading section for that week.  You are free to use other sources not on the recommended reading list, provided that you clear them with me.  You are responsible for clearing the area on which you are writing, as well as the specific additional sources you will be using from the recommended readings, at least one week prior to the due date of the paper.  If there are not at least five recommended readings on the syllabus for the topic on which you are writing, you may choose sources on your own, as long as they are cleared with me prior to writing.  All papers are due in my mailbox by 4:30 p.m. on the Friday that they are due.  Assignments that are not turned in on time will lose ten points for each day they are late.  Any assignment more than two days late will not be accepted.

 

Course Web Page

 

This course will be managed using WebCT.  During the first week of class, I will provide you with a password to access the course WebCT page.  You will be able to obtain all course information, including the syllabus and course schedule, reading assignments, resources for your research, discussion boards, and an email system to contact me, or other students in the class.  I will occasionally post messages regarding the schedule, assignments, and grades to the course page.  Therefore, you should make a habit of checking the page on a regular basis to keep with the course.  Detailed instructions to assist you in creating a WebCT account can be found here.  I will provide more details to assist you in accessing the course web page in class.

 

Academic Integrity

 

To paraphrase the immortal George Clinton: “Don’t fake the funk.”  Put simply, you are responsible for your own work.  It is considered cheating to submit someone else’s work as your own.  Using information from another source (book, article, internet site, another student, etc.) without properly crediting the author is plagiarism.  Direct quotations, paraphrased information, and the general use of another person’s idea must be properly referenced in your work.  During exams, you are not allowed external aids (notes, books, etc.).  The penalty for violations such as plagiarism, cheating, or other misconduct will result in a failing grade in the course, and may result in a formal charge of misconduct as outlined in the University Student Conduct Code, possibly leading to further sanctions, including suspension or expulsion.

 

If you have any questions about what constitutes cheating and plagiarism, contact the Southern Illinois University office of Academic Advising, or view the Policies and Procedures of the University.

 

Disabilities

 

Students with disabilities who require individualized testing or other accommodations should identify themselves to me immediately.  Every effort will be made to accommodate your needs.  Disabilities Support Services can assist you with testing, note-taking, and accessibility issues.

 

Contacting Me

 

You are always welcome to stop by my office during office hours to discuss questions/issues related to the course or other academic matters.  I am happy to make appointments outside of my office hours if you are unable to stop by during those times.  You may also contact me by phone or email via WebCT. 

 

Course Outline/Readings[1]

 

Part One.  Thinking about the Supreme Court: Introductory Material

 

      I.  Introduction to the Supreme Court: Organization and Operation (August 26th)

 

            A.  Procedures and Processes

            B.  History of the Supreme Court

 

                  Required Reading

            ·     Epstein, Lee and Thomas G. Walker.  2004.  Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Institutional Powers and Constraints, 5th ed.  Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, Chapter 1.

            ·     Segal, Jeffrey A. and Harold J. Spaeth.  2002.  The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited.  Cambridge University Press, Chapter 4.

 

      II.  Introduction to the  Research on The Supreme Court (September 9th)

 

            A.  The Scholarly Tradition

      B.  Conducting Research on US Courts

 

                  Required Reading

                  ·     Epstein, Lee.  Contemplating Courts, Chapter 1.

                  ·     Contemplating Courts, Appendices A – C

                  ·     Spaeth, Harold J.  1997.  Codebook to the Supreme Court Data Base.

                  ·     Spaeth, Harold J.  2001.  Codebook to the Rehnquist Court Justice-Centered Database (1986-1998 Terms).

                  ·     Gibson, James L.  1997.  Codebook to Phase Two of the Supreme Court Data Base, Amicus Curiae Data.

                  ·     Benesh, Sarah.  2002.  “Becoming an Intelligent User of the Spaeth Supreme Court Databases.”  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Political Science Association.  New Orleans, LA.

                  ·     Epstein, Lee, et. al. 2003.  The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions, Developments. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

                  ·     Epstein, Lee and Gary King.  2002.  “The Rules of Inference.”  University of Chicago Law Review.  69 (1): 1-133.

                  ·     Cross, Frank, Michael Heise, and Gregory C. Sisk.  2002.  “Above the Rules: A Response to Epstein and King.”  University of Chicago Law Review.  69 (1): 135-151.

                  ·     Goldsmith, Jack, and Adrian Vermeule.  2002.  “Empirical Methodology and Legal Scholarship.”  University of Chicago Law Review.  69 (1): 153-167.

                  ·     Revesz, Richard L.  2002.  “A Defense of Legal Scholarship.”  University of Chicago Law Review.  69 (1): 169-189.

                  ·     Epstein, Lee and Gary King.  2002.  “Empirical Research and the Goals of Legal Scholarship: A Response.”  University of Chicago Law Review.  69 (1): 191-209.

 

                  Other Recommended Readings

                  ·     Baum, Lawrence.  1997.  The Puzzle of Judicial Behavior.  University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.

                  ·     Djupe, Paul A., and Lee Epstein.  1998.  “From Schubert’s The Judicial Mind to Spaeth’s U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Data Base: A Crossvalidation.”  American Journal of Political Science.  42 (July): 1012-1019.

                  ·     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: 825-841.

                  ·     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.

                  ·     Murphy, Walter, and Joseph Tanenhaus.  1972.  The Study of Law.

                  ·     Smith, Rogers M.  1988.  “Political Jurisprudence, the ‘New Institutionalism,’ and the Future of Public Law.”  American Political Science Review.  82: 89-108.

                  ·     Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs, II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck.  1999.  “Strategy and Judicial Choice: New Institutionalist Approaches to Supreme Court Decision-Making.”  In  Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches, ed. Cornell Clayton and Howard Gillman.  Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

                  ·     Pritchett, C. Herman.  1948.  The Roosevelt Court: A Study in Judicial Politics and Values 1937-1947.  New York: MacMillan. 

                  ·     Maltzman, Forrest, and Paul J. Wahlbeck.  1996.  “Inside the U.S. Supreme Court: The Reliability of the Justices’ Conference Records.”  Journal of Politics. 58: 528-539.

                  ·     Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth.  1993.  The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model.  New York: Cambridge University Press.

                  ·     Symposium on the Supreme Court.  Judicature.  73: 196-198.

 

Part Two.  The Justices

 

      III.  The Appointment Process (September 16th)

 

            A. Retirements from the Court

 

            Required Reading

                  ·     Squire, Peverill.  1988.  “Politics and Personal Factors in the Retirement from the United States Supreme Court.”  Political Behavior.  10: 180.

                  ·     Hagle, Timothy.  1993.  “Strategic Retirements.”  Political Behavior.  15: 25.

                  ·     Zorn, Christopher, and Steven Van Winkle.  2000.  “A Competing Risks Model of U.S. Supreme Court Vacancies, 1789-1992.”  Political Behavior.  22 (June): 145-66.

 

                  Other Recommended Readings

                  ·     Barrow, Deborah J., and Gary Zuk.  1990.  “An Institutional Analysis of Turnover in the Lower Federal Courts, 1900-1987.”  Journal of Politics.  52: 457-476.

                  ·     Bonneau, Chris, and Melinda Gann-Hall.  2003.  “Predicting Challengers in State Supreme Court Elections: Context and the Politics of Institutional Design.”  Political Research Quarterly.  56 (3): 337-350.

                  ·     Hall, Melinda Gann.  1999.  “Voluntary Retirements from State Supreme Courts: An Examination of the Electoral Vulnerability Hypothesis.”  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.

                  ·     King, Gary.  1987.  “Presidential Appointments to the Supreme Court.”  American Politics Quarterly.  15: 373-386.

                  ·     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: 573-597.

                  ·     Squire, Peverill.  1988.  “Politics and Personal Factors in the Retirement from the United States Supreme Court.”  Political Behavior.  10: 180-190.

                  ·     Zuk, Gary, Gerard S. Gryski, and Deborah J. Barrow.  1993.  “Partisan Transformation of the Federal Judiciary, 1869-1992.”  American Politics Quarterly.  21:439-457.

 

            B.   Explaining the Nomination and Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices

 

                  Required Reading

                  ·     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: 655-681.

            ·     Johnson, Timothy, and Jason Roberts.  2004.  “Presidential Capital and the Supreme Court Confirmation Process.”  Journal of Politics.  66 (3): 663-683.

            ·     Moraski, Byron and Charles Shipan.  1997.  “The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations: A Theory of Institutional Constraints and Choices.” American Journal of Political Science.  43: 1069-1095.

            ·     Cameron, Charles M., Albert D. Cover and Jeffrey A. Segal.  1990.  “Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees: A Neo-institutional Model.”  American Political Science Review.  84: 525-534.

                  ·     Caldeira, Greg and John Wright.  Contemplating Courts.  Chapter 3.

                  ·     Bork, Robert.  1990.  The Tempting of America.  New York: Free Press.  pp. 271-355.

 

                  Other Recommended Readings

                  ·     Abraham, Henry J.  1999.  Justices, Presidents, and Senators, 3rd ed.  New York: Oxford University Press.

                  ·     Binder, Sarah, and Forrest Maltzman.  2002.  “Senatorial Delay in Confirming Federal Judges, 1947-1988.”  American Journal of Political Science.  46 (1): 190-199.

                  ·     Gimpel, James G., and Robin M. Wolpert.  1996.  “Opinion-Holding and Public Attitudes Toward Controversial Supreme Court Nominees.”  Political Research Quarterly.  49: 163-176.

                  ·     Langer, Laura, Jody McMullen, Nicholas Ray, and Daniel Stratton.  2002.  “Recruitment of Chief Justices on State Supreme Courts: A Choice between Institutional and Personal Goals.”  Journal of Politics.  65 (3): 656-675.

                  ·     Martinek, Wendy,  Mark Kemper, and Steven Van Winkle.  2002.  “To Advise and Consent: The Senate and Lower Federal Court Nominations.”  Journal of Politics.  64 (2): 337-361.

                  ·     Massie, Tajuana, Thomas Hansford, and Donald Songer.  2004.  “The Timing of Presidential Nominations to the Lower Federal Courts.”  Political Research Quarterly.  57 (1): 145-154.

                  ·     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: 997-1003.

                  ·     Ruckman, P.S.  1993.  “The Supreme Court, Critical Nominations, and the Senate Confirmation Process.”  Journal of Politics.  55: 793-805.

                  ·     Segal, Jeffrey A.  1987.  “Senate Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices.”  Journal of Politics.  49: 998-1015.

                  ·     Segal, Jeffrey A.  2000.  “Buyer Beware? Presidential Success Through Supreme Court Appointments.”  Political Research Quarterly.  53: 557-573.

                  ·     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: 96-121.\

                  ·     Shipan, Charles, and Megan Shannon.  2003.  “Delaying Justice(s): A Duration Analysis of Supreme Court Confirmations.”  American Journal of Political Science.  47 (4): 654-668.

 

      IV.  Who Makes It? And Does it Matter?  (September 23rd)

 

            A. Background Characteristics of Justices

            B. Backgrounds and Voting Behavior

 

                  Required Reading

            ·     Ulmer, S. Sidney.  1973.  “Social Background as an Indicator of the Votes of Supreme Court Justices: 1947-1956 Terms.”  American Journal of Political Science.  17: 622.

            ·     Tate, C. Neal.  1981.  “Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economics Decisions, 1946-1978.”  American Political Science Review.  75: 355.

            ·     Ulmer, S. Sidney.  1986.  “Are Social Background Models Time Bound?”  American Political Science Review.  80: 957-967.

            ·     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: 460-481.

                  ·     Segal, Jeffrey and Harold Spaeth. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model.  pp. 231-235.

 

Part Three.  Judicial Gatekeeping: Agenda Setting and The Cases

 

      V.  Getting into the Court (September 30th )

 

            A.  The Problem: Access to the Court

                  1.  A Look at the Process

                  2.  The Importance of Access: Caseload and Agenda-Setting

 

            B.  Explaining Gatekeeping Decisions

 

            Required Reading

                  ·     Rule 10 of the Supreme Court

            ·     Tanenhaus, Joseph, et al.  1963.  “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decision: Cue Theory.”  In Judicial Decision Making, ed. Glendon Schubert.  New York: Free Press.

                  ·     Perry, H.W.  1991.  Deciding to Decide.  (Read entire book).

            ·     Krol, John F., and Saul Brenner.  1990.  “Strategies in Certiorari Voting on the United States Supreme Court.”  Western Political Quarterly.  43: 335-342.

            ·     Boucher, Robert L., Jr., 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: 824-837.

           

            Other Recommended Readings

            ·     Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Jennifer Nicoll Victor.  2002.  “Dynamic Agenda Setting on the U.S. Supreme Court: An Empirical Assessment.”  Harvard Journal on Legislation, forthcoming.

                  ·     Baum, Lawrence.  1993.  “Case Selection and Decision Making in the U.S. Supreme Court.”  Law and Society Review.  27: 443-59.

                  ·     Hermann, John R.  1997.  “American Indian Interests and Supreme Court Agenda Setting.”  American Politics Quarterly.  25: 241-260.

                  ·     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.

                  ·     Ulmer, S. Sidney.  1984.  “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a Predictive Variable.”  American Political Science Review.  78: 901-911.

                  ·     Stevens, John Paul. 1983. “The Life Span of a Judge-Made Rule.”  New York University Law Review.  58 (April): 1-21.

 

            C.  The Court's Agenda

 

                  Required Reading

                  ·     Pacelle, Richard.  Contemplating Courts.  Chapter 11.

·     Baird, Vanessa. 2004.  “The Effect of Politically Salient Decisions on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Agenda.”  Journal of Politics.  66 (3): 775-772.

 

Part Four.  Decision Making

 

      VI.  An Introduction to Decision Making  (October 7th )

 

            A.  Studying Decision Making: The Evolution of the Field

            B.   The Key Controversies

 

                  Required Reading

                  ·     Schubert, Glendon.  1967.  “Academic Ideology and the Study of Adjudication.”  American Political Science Review.  61: 106.

                  ·     Baum, Lawrence.  1999.  The Puzzle of Judicial Behavior.  Chapters 1 – 3.

 

      VII.  “Legal” Models (October 7th )

 

            A.  The Model

 

                  Required Reading

                  ·     Goldstein, Leslie.  Contemplating Courts, Chapter 12.

                  ·     Review Epstein and Walker, Chapter 1.

 

            B.   Verification? The Role of Facts and Precedent

 

                  Required Reading

                  ·     Spaeth, Harold J., and Jeffrey A. Segal.  1999.  Majority Rule or Minority Will: Adherence to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  (Read entire book)

                  ·     Gates, John B., and Glenn A. Phelps.  1996.  “Intentionalism in Constitutional Opinions.”  Political Research Quarterly.  48: 245-261.

                  ·     Wahlbeck, Paul J.  1997.  “The Life of the Law: Judicial Politics and Legal Change.”  Journal of Politics.  59 (August): 778-802.

                  ·     Segal, Jeffrey A.  1984.  “Predicting Supreme Court Decisions Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases.”  American Political Science Review.  78: 891-900.

            ·     George, Tracey E. and Lee Epstein.  1992.  “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making.”  American Political Science Review.  86: 323-337. 

            ·     Symposium.  1996.  “The Influence of Stare Decisis on the Votes of Supreme Court Justices.”  American Journal of Political Science.  40: 971-1082.

 

                  Other Recommended Readings

                  ·     Richards, Mark, and Herbert Kritzer.  2002.  “Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making.”  American Political Science Review.  96 (2): 305-320.               

                  ·     Wahlbeck, Paul J.  1999.  “The Development of a Legal Rule: The Federal Common Law of Public Nuisance.”  Law & Society Review.  33 (3).

                  ·     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.

                  ·     Shapiro, Martin.  1965.  “Stability and Change in Judicial Decision-Making: Incrementalism or Stare Decisis.”  Law in Transition Quarterly.  2: 134-157.

                  ·     Wechsler, Herbert.  1959.  “Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law.”  Harvard Law Review.  73: 1-35.

                  ·     Holmes, Oliver W.  1897.  “The Path of the Law.”  Harvard Law Review.  10: 457-478.

                  ·     Cardozo, Benjamin.  1964 [1921].  The Nature of the Judicial Process.  Yale University Press: New Haven, CT.

                  ·     Spiller, Pablo T., and Matthew L. Spitzer.  1992. “Judicial Choice of Legal Doctrines.”  Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization.  8 (1): 8-46.

                  ·     Rasmusen, Eric.  1994.  “Judicial Legitimacy as a Repeated Game.”  Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization.  10: 63-83.

                  ·     Johnson, Charles A.  1986.  “Follow-Up Citations in the U.S. Supreme Court.”  Western Political Quarterly.  39: 538-547.

                  ·     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: 567-596.

                  ·     Gillman, Howard.  1996.  “More on the Origins of the Fuller Court’s Jurisprudence: Reexamining the Scope of Federal Power Over Commerce and Manufacturing in Nineteenth-Century Constitutional Law.”  Political Research Quarterly.  49: 415-437.

                  ·     Hurwitz, Mark, and Joseph Stevko.  2004.  “Acclimation and Attitudes: “Newcomer Justices and Precedent Conformance.”  Political Research Quarterly.  57 (1): 121-130.

                  ·     Mendelson, Wallace.  1996.  “Nullification via Dual Federalism: A Second Response to Professor Gillman.”  Political Research Quarterly.  49: 439-444.

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

                  ·     Kort, Fred.  1963.  “Content Analysis of Judicial Opinions and Rules of Law.”  In Judicial Decision Making, ed. Glendon Schubert.  New York: Free Press.

                  ·     Walsh, David J.  1997.  “On the Meaning and Pattern of Legal Citations: Evidence from State Wrongful Discharge Precedent Cases.”  Law & Society Review.  31: 337-360.

                  ·     Harris, Peter.  1985.  “Ecology and Culture in the Communication of Precedent Among State Supreme Courts.”

                  ·     Caldeira, Gregory A.  1988.  “Legal Precedent: Structures of Communication Between State Supreme Courts.”  Social Networks.  10: 29-55.

 

      VIII.  The Attitudinal Model (October 14th )

 

            A.  The Model

 

                  Required Reading

                  ·     Segal and Spaeth.  The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited.  pp. 86-114, Chapters 7 & 8.

                  ·     Spaeth, Contemplating Courts.  Chapter 13.

                  ·     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: 812-823.

                  ·     Epstein, Lee, et al.  1998.  “Do Political Preferences Change?  A Longitudinal Study of U.S. Supreme Court Justices?”  Journal of Politics.  60 (3): 801-818.

                   

            B.   Some Debates

 

                  Required Reading

            ·     The Spaeth-Mendelson Exchange.  1964-1966.  Journal of Politics.

                  ·     Mendelson, Wallace.  1964.  “The Untroubled World of Jurimetrics.”  26 (4): 914-922.

                  ·     Kort, Fred.  1964.  “Comment on ‘The Untroubled World of Jurimetrics.’”  26 (4): 923-926.

                  ·     Spaeth, Harold.  1965.  “Jurimetrics and Professor Mendelson: A Troubled Relationship.”  27 (4): 875-880.

                  ·     Mendelson, Wallace.  1966.  “An Open Letter to Professor Spaeth and his ‘Jurimetrical’ Colleagues.”  28 (2): 429-432.

                  ·     The Debate over SCAM in Law and Courts.  (Spring 1994).

 

      IX.  The Strategic Account

 

            A. The Early Studies and an Overview of the “Strategic Revolution” (October 21st )

 

                  Required Reading

                  ·     Murphy, Walter F.  1964.  Elements of Judicial Strategy.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chapters 1 – 3, 8.

                  ·     Howard, J. Woodford Jr.  1968.  “On the Fluidity of Judicial Choice.”  American Political Science Review.  62 (1): 43-56.

                  ·     Baum, Lawrence.  1999.  The Puzzle of Judicial Behavior.  Chapter 4.

                  ·     Epstein, Lee and Jack Knight.  2000.  “Field Essay: Toward a Strategic Revolution in Judicial Politics: A Look Back, A Look Ahead.”  Political Research Quarterly.  53 (September): 625-661.

 

                  Other Recommended Readings

                  ·     Brace, Paul, and Melinda Gann Hall.  1995.  “Studying Courts Comparatively: The View From the American States.”  Political Research Quarterly.  48 (March): 5-29.

                  ·     Hettinger, Virginia, Stefanie Lindquist, and Wendy Martinek.  2004.  “Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals.”  American Journal of Political Science.  48 (1): 123-137.

                  ·     Maltzman, Forrest, and Paul J. Wahlbeck.  1996.  “Strategic Policy Considerations and Voting Fluidity on the Burger Court.”  American Political Science Review.  90: 581-592.

 

            B.  Applications: The Supreme Court and the Separation of Powers System (October 28th)

 

                  Required Reading

                  ·     Knight, Jack and Lee Epstein.  1996.  “On the Struggle for Judicial Supremacy.” Law and Society Review.  30 (1): 87-130.

                  ·     Eskridge, William N., Jr.  1991.  “Reneging on History?”  California Law Review.  79: 613.

                  ·     Epstein and Walker.  Contemplating Courts.  Chapter 14.

                  ·     Hausseger, Lori and Lawrence Baum.  1999.  “Inviting Congressional Action: A Study of Supreme Court Motivations in Statutory Interpretation.”  American Journal of Political Science.  43 (1): 162-185.

                  ·     Sala, Brian, and James Spriggs.  2004.  “Designing Tests of the Supreme Court and the Separation of Powers.”  Political Research Quarterly.  57 (2): 197-208.

                  ·     Segal, Jeffrey A.  1997.  “Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts.”  American Political Science Review.  91 (1): 28-44.

 

                  Other Recommended Readings

                  ·     Caldeira, Gregory A., and Donald J. McCrone.  1982.  “Of Time and Judicial Activism: A Study of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1800-1973.”  In Supreme Court Activism and Restraint.  eds. Stephen C. Halpern and Charles M. Lamb.  Lexington Books: Lexington, MA.

                  ·     Eskridge, William N.  1991.  “Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Decisions.”  Yale Law Journal.  101: 331-450.

                  ·     Funston, Richard.  1975.  “The Supreme Court and Critical Elections.”  American Political Science Review.  69: 795-811.

                  ·     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: 263-300.

                  ·     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: 45-67.

                  ·     Henschen, Beth.  1983.  “Statutory Interpretations of the Supreme Court: Congressional Response.”  American Politics Quarterly.  11: 441-458.

                  ·     Henschen, Beth M., and Edward I. Sidlow.  1989.  “The Supreme Court and the Congressional Agenda-Setting Process.”  Journal of Law and Politics.  5: 685-724.

                  ·     Ignagni, Joseph, and James Meernik.  1994.  “Explaining Congressional Attempts to Reverse Supreme Court Decisions.”  Political Research Quarterly.  47: 353-371.

                  ·     Meernik, James, and Joseph Ignagni.  1995.  “Congressional Attacks on Supreme Court Rulings Involving Unconstitutional State Laws.”  Political Research Quarterly.  48: 43-59.

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

                  ·     Spiller, Pablo T., and Rafael Gely.  1992.  “Congressional Control or Judicial Independence.”  RAND Journal of Economics.  23: 463-492.

                  ·     De Figueiredo, John M., and Emerson H. Tiller.  1996.  “Congressional Control of the Courts: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Expansion of the Federal Judiciary.”  Journal of Law and Economics.  39 (October): 435-462.

                  ·     Spiller, Pablo T., and Emerson H. Tiller.  1996.  “Congressional Reversals of Supreme Court Decisions.”  International Review of Law and Economics.  16 (December): 503-521.

 

            C.   Applications: The Internal Context (November 4th)

 

                  Required Reading

                  ·     Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs, II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck.  2000.  Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  (Read entire book).

     

Part Five.  Interest Groups, Attorneys, and the Public

 

      X.  Interest Groups and Attorneys (November 11th)

 

                  Required Reading

                  ·     Epstein, Lee.  1991.  “Courts and Interest Groups.”  In The American Courts: A Critical Assessment.  ed. Charles Johnson and John Gates.  Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

                  ·     Caldeira, Gregory and John R. Wright.  1988.  “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.”  American Political Science Review.  82 (4): 1109-1127.

                  ·     Epstein, Lee and Jack Knight.  1998.  “Mapping Out the Strategic Terrain: The Informational Role of Amici Curiae.”  In Institutional Approaches to Supreme Court Decision Making, ed. Cornell Clayton and Howard Gillman.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

                  ·     McGuire, Kevin.  Contemplating Courts.  Chapter 4.

                  ·     Spriggs, James F., II., and Paul J. Wahlbeck.  1997.  “Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court.”  Political Research Quarterly.  50: 365-386.

 

                  Other Recommended Readings

                  ·     Gillman, Howard.  2002.  “How Political Parties Can Use the Courts to Advance Their Agendas: Federal Courts in the United States, 1875-1891.”  American Political Science Review.  96 (3): 511-524.

                  ·     Comparato, Scott A., and Timothy R. Johnson.  2001.  “A Neo-Institutional Approach to Understanding the Role of Amici Curiae in State Supreme Courts.”  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA. 

                  ·     Segal, Jeffrey A.  1988.  “Amicus Curiae Briefs Filed by the Solicitor General during the Warren and Burger Courts.”  Western Political Quarterly.  41: 135.

                  ·     Songer, Donald R., and Reginald S. Sheehan.  1993.  “Interest Group Success in the Courts: Amicus Participation in the Supreme Court.”  Political Research Quarterly.  46: 339-354.

                  ·     McGuire, Kevin T.  1994.  “Amici Curiae Strategies for Gaining Access to the Supreme Court.”  Political Research Quarterly.  47:821-837.

                  ·     Songer, Donald R., and Ashlyn Kuersten.  1995.  “The Success of Amici in State Supreme Courts.”  Political Research Quarterly.  48: 31-42.

                  ·     Barker, Lucius.  1967.  “Third Parties in Litigation: A Systemic View of the Judicial Function.”  Journal of Politics.  29: 41-69.

                  ·     Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright.  1990.  “Amici Curiae before the Supreme Court: Who Participates, When, and How Much?”  Journal of Politics.  52: 782-806.

                  ·     Cortner, Richard C.  1968.  “Strategies and Tactics of Litigants in Constitutional Cases.”  Journal of Public Law.  17: 287-307.

                  ·     Epstein, Lee.  1994.  “Exploring the Participation of Organized Interests in State Court Litigation.”  Political Research Quarterly.  47: 335-351.

                  ·     Kobylka, Joseph F.  1987.  “A Court-Created Context for Group Litigation: Libertarian Groups and Obscenity.”  Journal of Politics.  49: 1061-1078.

                  ·     O'Connor, Karen.  1980.  Women's Organizations Use of the Courts.  Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

                  ·     Olson, Susan M.  1990.  “Interest-Group Litigation in Federal District Court: Beyond the Political Disadvantage Theory.”  Journal of Politics.  52: 854-882.

                  ·     Vose, Clement E.  1955.  “NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases.”  Case Western Reserve Law Review.  6: 101-145.

                  ·     Epstein, Lee.  1993.  “Interest Group Litigation During the Rehnquist Court Era.”  The Journal of Law and Politics.  9 (Summer): 639-717.

                  ·     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.

                  ·     Zorn, Christopher.  2002.  “U.S. Government Litigation Strategies in the Federal Appellate Courts.” Political Research Quarterly.  55 (1): 145-166.

 

      XI.  Public Opinion

 

            A.  The Court’s Impact on Public Opinion (November 18th)

 

                  Required Reading

                  ·     Caldeira, Gregory A.  1987.  “Public Opinion and the U.S. Supreme Court: FDR's Court-Packing Plan.”  American Political Science Review.  81 (4): 1139-1153.

                  ·     Franklin, Charles H. and Liane C. Kosaki.  1989.  “The Republican School Master: The Supreme Court, Public Opinion, and Abortion.”  American Political Science Review.  83 (3): 751-771.

                  ·     Johnson, Timothy R. and Andrew D. Martin.  1998.  “The Public's Conditional Response to Supreme Court Decisions.”  American Political Science Review.  92 (2): 299-309.

                  ·     Gibson, James, Gregory Caldeira, and Lester Spence.  2003.  “Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court.”  American Journal of Political Science.  47 (2): 354-367.

                  ·     Hoekstra, Valerie.  2003.  Public Reaction to Supreme Court Decisions.  New York: Cambridge University Press. (Read entire book)

 

                  Other Recommended Readings

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

                  ·     Caldeira, Gregory A., and James L. Gibson.  1992.  “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.”  American Journal of Political Science.  36: 635-664.

                  ·     Hoekstra, Valerie.  1995.  “The Supreme Court and Opinion Change: An Experimental Study of the Court's Ability to Change Opinions.”  American Politics Quarterly.  23: 109-129.

                  ·     Link, Michael M.  1995.  “Tracking Public Mood in the Supreme Court: Cross-Time Analysis of Criminal Procedure and Civil Rights Cases.”  Political Research Quarterly.  48: 61-78.

                  ·     Marshall, Thomas R.  1989.  Public Opinion and the Supreme Court.  Boston: Unwin Hyman.

                  ·     Mishler, William, and Reginald S. Sheehan.  1996.  “Public Opinion, the Attitudinal Model, and Supreme Court Decision Making: A Micro-Analytic Perspective.”  Journal of Politics.  58: 169-200.

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

 

            B.   The Public’s Impact on the Courts (December 2nd)

 

                  Required Reading

                  ·     Mishler/Sheehan-Segal/Norpoth Exchange:

                        ·     Mishler, William and Reginald Sheehan.  1993.  “The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution.”  American Political Science Review.  87 (1): 87-101; 

                        ·     Norpoth, Helmut and Jeffrey A. Segal.  1994.  “Popular Influence on Supreme Court Decisions.”  American Political Science Review.  88 (3): 711-724.

                  ·     Flemming, Roy B. and B. Dan Wood.  1997.  “The Public and the Supreme Court: Individual Justice Responsiveness to American Policy Moods.”  American Journal of Political Science.  41 (April): 468-498.

 

Part Six.  Assessments of the Court

 

      XII.  Role of the Court in a Democratic Society (December 9th)

 

                  Required Reading

                  ·     Dahl, Robert A.  1957.  “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker.”  Journal of Public Law.  6: 279-295.

                  ·     Casper, Jonathan.  1976.  “The Supreme Court and National Policy Making.”  American Political Science Review.  70 (1): 50-63. 

                  ·     Bowen, Lauren.  Contemplating Courts.  Chapter 16.

                  ·     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 (4): 1224-1250.

                  ·     Howard, Robert and Jeffrey Segal.  2004.  “A Preference for Deference?: The Supreme Court and Judicial Review.”  Political Research Quarterly.  57 (1): 131-143.

 

                  Other Recommended Readings

                  ·     Comparato, Scott A., and Scott D. McClurg.  2002.  “State Supreme Court Compliance with Supreme Court Precedent.”  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.

                  ·     McClurg, Scott D., and Scott A. Comparato.  2003.  “Rebellious or Just Misunderstood?: Assessing Measures of Lower Court Compliance with Supreme Court Precedent.”  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.  Philadelphia, PA.

                  ·     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: 1-24.

                  ·     Hoekstra, Valerie and Timothy Johnson.  2003.  “Delaying Justice:  The Supreme Court’s Decision to Hear Rearguments.”  Political Research Quarterly.  56 (3): 351-360.

                  ·     Horowitz, Donald L.  1977.  The Courts & Social Policy.  Washington, DC: Brookings.

                  ·     Muir, William K., Jr.  1967.  Prayer in the Public Schools: Law and Attitude

                        Change.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

                  ·     Scheingold, Stuart.  1974.  The Politics of Rights: Lawyers, Public Policy, and

                        Political Change.  New Haven: Yale University Press.

 

Important Dates

 

Analysis Paper 1:   September 24th

Analysis Paper 2:   October 15th

Analysis Paper 3:   November 4th

Analysis Paper 4:   December 10th

 

Class will not meet:

 

      September 2nd (APSA meeting)

      November 25th (Thanksgiving)

 


[1] I reserve the right to make changes to the reading assignments and the dates that material will be covered as necessary.