Supreme Court agenda setting: strategic behavior during case selection

2014 ◽  
Vol 52 (04) ◽  
pp. 52-2267-52-2267
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Strategic Behavior ◽  
Case Selection

Agenda Setting and Case Selection on the U.S. Supreme Court

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Lane ◽  
Ryan C. Black
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Policy Change ◽  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
Fundamental Step ◽  
Case Selection ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Grant Review ◽  
The U.S

The Supreme Court’s docket consists of thousands of cases each term, with petitioners hoping at least four justices will be compelled to grant review to their case. The decision to move a case from their docket to their calendar for oral arguments and all intermediate steps is what is known as the agenda-setting process. This is a fundamental step in the judicial process, as the Supreme Court cannot establish precedent and affect policy change without first deciding to review.

The United States Supreme Court’s case selection: A primer for the South African Constitutional Court in hearing matters of general public importance

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-174
Author(s):  
Paul Nkoane
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
South African ◽  
General Public ◽  
The United States ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
The South ◽  
Case Selection ◽  
The Supreme Court

The jurisdiction of the South African Constitutional Court has been extended for the court to administer ‘matters of general public importance’ in addition to administering constitutional matters. There is no South African court that accepted appeals on the grounds that the matter raised an arguable point of law of general public importance. This novelty in the South African law requires an inspection of other jurisdictions to determine which matters the Constitutional Court should accept for appeals. In this respect, the article inspects the Supreme Court of the United States case docket to determine the kinds of cases the court accepts for appeals.

scholarly journals Case selection and Supreme Court pivots

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Greg Sasso ◽  
Gleason Judd
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Case Selection ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions ◽  
Median Justice

Abstract How does the Rule of Four affect Supreme Court decisions? We show two effects of changing a “hearing pivot” justice who is decisive for case selection. First, a court with more extreme hearing pivots will hear cases with more moderate precedents. For example, as the conservative hearing pivot becomes more extreme, the court hears a broader range of cases with liberal status quo precedents. Second, more extreme hearing pivots shrink dispositional majorities and lead to more polarized rulings. If the median justice becomes more extreme without changing the hearing pivots, then rulings are more extreme. The effect on the range of cases heard, however, is smaller than that from changing hearing pivots. Finally, we show that case selection can also depend on non-median, non-hearing-pivot justices. Replacing an extreme justice with someone even more extreme can lead to a smaller set of heard cases, as final rulings can shift away from the binding hearing pivot, making status quo precedents more appealing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document