scholarly journals Peer effects on the United States Supreme Court

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 981-1019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Holden ◽  
Michael Keane ◽  
Matthew Lilley
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Peer Effects ◽  
Peer Group ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mechanical Effect ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Circuit Courts

Using data on essentially every U.S. Supreme Court decision since 1946, we estimate a model of peer effects on the Court. We estimate the impact of justice ideology and justice votes on the votes of their peers. To identify the peer effects, we use two instruments that generate plausibly exogenous variation in the peer group itself, or in the votes of peers. The first instrument utilizes the fact that the composition of the Court varies from case to case due to recusals or absences for health reasons. The second utilizes the fact that many justices previously sat on Federal Circuit Courts, and justices are generally much less likely to overturn decisions in cases sourced from their former “home” court. We find large peer effects. For example, we can use our model to predict the impact of replacing Justice Ginsburg with Justice Barrett. Under the the assumption that Justice Barrett's ideological position aligns closely with Justice Scalia, for whom she clerked, we predict that her influence on the Court will increase the Conservative vote propensity of the other justices by 4.7 percentage points. That translates into 0.38 extra conservative votes per case on top of the impact of her own vote. In general, we find indirect effects are large relative to the direct mechanical effect of a justice's own vote.

Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court

1988 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 1109-1127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory A. Caldeira ◽  
John R. Wright
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Amicus Curiae ◽  
Organized Interests ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Selection Of

Participation as amicus curiae has long been an important tactic of organized interests in litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court. We analyze amicus curiae briefs filed before the decision on certiorari and assess their impact on the Court's selection of a plenary docket. We hypothesize that one or more briefs advocating or opposing certiorari increase the likelihood of its being granted. We test this hypothesis using data from the United States Reports and Briefs and Records of the United States Supreme Court for the 1982 term. The statistical analysis demonstrates that the presence of amicus curiae briefs filed prior to the decision on certiorari significantly and positively increases the chances of the justices' binding of a case over for full treatment—even after we take into account the full array of variables other scholars have hypothesized or shown to be substantial influences on the decision to grant or deny.

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and Public Debt Litigation: Some Fifteen Years Later

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georges R. Delaume
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Debt ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Debt Rescheduling ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Difficult Situations

The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc. is an invitation to reassess the impact of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) upon public debt litigation. In contrast with other activities of foreign states, which have been the object of extensive and continuing litigation, barely two dozen cases involving public debt disputes have been reported since the FSIA took effect. Whether this situation is attributable to the care with which transnational loan documents are usually drafted or to some other reasons, including possibly the contemporary tendency to rely on debt rescheduling as a means of remedying difficult situations, is an interesting matter of speculation. Whatever the explanation for the relatively limited number of public debt cases, Weltover can be expected to have a decisive impact upon future litigation.

scholarly journals Which Statute Will Trump

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-131
Author(s):  
Allen Al-Haj
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Labor Relations ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Mutual Aid ◽  
National Labor Relations Board ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Circuit Courts

A law can often be a double-edged sword—its mandate or protection of one right will sometimes come at the cost of another. Compounding this problem of unintended consequences is that laws do not operate in a vacuum. Instead, laws interact with other laws, and if they conflict, courts must determine which will prevail. Determining the validity of class-action waivers in employment arbitration agreements will require reconciling the Federal Arbitration Act’s mandate that arbitration agreements be enforced according to their terms against the National Labor Relations Act’s protection of employees’ right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid and protection. The dispute over the validity of these agreements requires courts to determine which law and congressional policy should prevail. The National Labor Relations Board and circuit courts throughout the country have been unable to reach a uniform decision, which has prompted the United States Supreme Court to grant certiorari on a triad of cases concerning this issue. With a decision from the nation’s highest Court expected during the 2017–18 term, this Comment analyzes the background and legal arguments behind these competing statutes to determine how the Court is likely to rule. This Comment concludes that, given the Court’s previous rulings in arbitration and class-action cases and the recent Supreme Court confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court is likely to rule in favor of validating class-action waivers in employment arbitration agreements.

scholarly journals An Argument for the Admissibility of Execution Impact Evidence in Pennsylvania

2005 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paige H. Forster
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Capital Trials ◽  
Eighth Amendment ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Penalty Phase

In 1991, the United States Supreme Court made a significant change to sentencing proceedings during capital trials. The Court ruled in Payne v. Tennessee that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit “victim impact evidence,” testimony about the character of the murder victim and the impact of the death on the victim’s family. The Payne decision permits highly emotional testimony from family members to enter into the penalty phase of a death penalty trial.

The Supreme Court and the Juvenile Court

1967 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 481-487
Author(s):  
Noah Weinstein ◽  
Corinne R. Goodman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Exact Effect ◽  
The Impact ◽  
First Time

For the first time in its 68-year history, the juvenile court has felt the impact of the United States Supreme Court. It would be impossible to predict the exact effect of the decisions, but unquestionably they will be of prime importance in their influ ence on juvenile court procedures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document