The Government Deference Dimension of Judicial Decision Making: Evidence from the Supreme Court of Norway

Past research has revealed conflicting findings regarding the degree to which judges on European apex courts enact their policy preferences or instead disagree on the basis of divergent legal views. We investigate disagreement between judges on the Norwegian Supreme Court between 1996 and 2016. During this period, the court dealt with a greater volume of policy-relevant cases than previously. The method of appointment to the court was also changed to a judicial appointments commission. We analyse non-unanimous cases using item response theory models. We find that judges are not divided along left–right lines but instead disagree about the appropriate degree of deference to give to public authorities. There is no significant association between the appointing government and judges' ideal points either before or after the reform to appointments. Judges who were formerly academics are however much less deferential than career judges or judges who were previously lawyers in private practice.     

Signals from the Tenth Justice: The Political Role of the Solicitor General in Supreme Court Decision Making

Conventional explanations of the solicitor general's influence on the Supreme Court emphasize his expertise or experience. We articulate and test a more political account based on insights from signaling theory. We argue justices will be more receptive to signals from the solicitor general (S.G.) when either the justice and S.G. are ideologically proximate or the S.G.'s signal is contrary to his ideological predisposition. We test our account over the period from 1953 to 2002 using a newly developed interinstitutional measure of ideology that places executive and judicial actors on the same spatial scale. Our results highlight the political nature of the S.G.'s influence, challenging the received wisdom about the S.G.'s impact on the Supreme Court.     

Social backgrounds,social motives and participation on the U.S. Supreme Court

This study explores the utility of psychological content analysis in studying judicial behavior. Justices' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee was scored for power, achievement, and affiliation imagery using content analysis techniques developed by Winter (1982a). The results suggest that motivational content analysis may provide a more direct means of assessing the relationship between judges' psychological disposition and their decision making behavior. Combinations of motive imagery variables and social background variables explained between 64% and 83% of the variation in writing opinions and in casting concurring and dissenting votes among U.S. Supreme Court justices.     

Agenda Control, the Median Justice, and the Majority Opinion on the U.S. Supreme Court

Some scholars argue that the author of the majority opinion exercises the most influence over the Court's opinion-writing process and so can determine what becomes Court policy, at least within the limits of what some Court majority finds acceptable. Other students of the Court have suggested that the Court's median justice effectively dictates the content of the majority opinion: whatever policy the median justice most wants, she can get. We test these competing models with data on Supreme Court decision making during the Burger Court (1969–86). While we find substantial evidence for both models, the agenda control model gains greater support. This suggests that opinions on the Court on each case are driven, in general, by the interaction of three key variables: the policy preferences of the majority opinion author, the policy preferences of the median justice, and the location of the legal status quo .     

The outcome-prediction strategy in cases denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court

We investigate whether the substantial use of the outcome-prediction strategy by Supreme Court justices occurs in the petitions denied certiorari by the Court. We show with a computer simulation that [Caldeira, G.A., Wright, J.R., & Zorn, C.J.W. (1999). Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 15, 549–572], who modeled the missing final votes for denied petitions in order to include them in their study of the use of the outcome-prediction strategy, may have obtained spurious results. Application of the logic of conditional probabilities to the denied petitions suggests that all but those denied by the narrowest of margins are probably considered unacceptable by the justices on non-outcome-oriented grounds, and, therefore, are not subject to use of this strategy. We evaluate the pursuit of the outcome-prediction strategy in petitions that narrowly fail to be granted cert by focusing upon the petitions that are narrowly granted cert and find limited use of the strategy. We conclude that the outcome-prediction strategy probably is little used by the justices in confronting the petitions denied cert and that investigations of the use of this strategy are best confined to those petitions granted cert.     

Judicial Review and the Supreme Court of Washington, 1890-1986

The literature on judicial review by state supreme courts suggeststhat from the beginnings of the republic until today, statejudicial review has shifted generally from what can be calleda restraintist departmentalism to an activist "new federalism."Since statehood in 1889, the Supreme Court of Washington hasreacted to constitutional challenges in much the same manneras the high courts of other states. Recently, however, Washington'sjurists have forged an independent course by applying the morerestrictive aspects of the state constitution to private andgovernmental intrusions into personal lives rather than relyingon the guidelines provided by the federal Constitution and theU.S. Supreme Court. The nature of this second "Golden Age" ofstate judicial review, because of its effect on federalism ratherthan the separation of powers, requires appraisal from a newperspective.