The Consistency of the U.S. Supreme Court's "Pro-State" Bloc

This article examines the bloc of U.S. Supreme Court justicesthat produced the "pro-state" decisions in United States v.Lopez, Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, and Printz v. UnitedStates. We are concerned primarily with the bloc's coherenceand consistency across other cases of interest to state governmentsover the 1994–1996 terms. The labeling of individual justicesand the Court in general as "pro-state" depends in part on thecases subjected to analysis; the greater the inclusiveness ofthe list of "cases of interest to the states, " the more thebloc seems to fray and the less coherent the Court's direction.     

The U.S. Supreme Court's Federalism Jurisprudence: Alden v. Maine and the Enhancement of State Sovereignty

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court's federalism jurisprudencehas shielded states from certain aspects of Congress's policymakingand enforcement authority. Through its interpretations of theinterstate commerce clause and of the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments,the Court has reminded Congress that its power to govern haslimits. This article presents the major federalism cases ofthe 1990s, focusing on Alden v. Maine, the most important federalismdecision of the 1998–1999 term. It concludes that theCourt's interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment and the sovereign-immunitydoctrine, which has constrained the federal government's powerto authorize private suits against states for violations offederal law, poses a threat to a fundamental principle of therule of law: "where there is a right, there is a remedy."     

Towards an Integrated Model of the U.S. Supreme Court's Federalism Decision Making

Disputes involving the boundaries of state versus federal powermake up a substantial portion of the U.S. Supreme Court's docketand have undergone extensive analysis. Yet, the conventionalwisdom regarding the justices’ choices in these casesis that they are highly inconsistent. I argue that this is primarilya function of the failure of scholars to develop a comprehensivemodel of the justices’ federalism decision making. Toremedy this, I introduce an integrated model of the individualjustices’ choices in these cases, which is then subjectedto empirical testing in the Rehnquist Court era (1986–2004).I explore a host of determinants of the justices’ decisionmaking, including attitudinal, institutional, legal, and personalattributes, as well as the role of organized interests in theCourt. The findings reveal that the choices justices make inthese cases are not as discordant as most commentators suggest.Rather, they are relatively predictable through the applicationof an integrated model of judicial choice.     

The Semiconstrained Court: Public Opinion,the Separation of Powers,and the U.S. Supreme Court's Fear of Nonimplementation

Numerous studies have found that elite and popular preferences influence decision making on the U.S. Supreme Court; yet, uncertainty remains about when, how, and why the Court is constrained by external pressure. I argue the justices are constrained, at least in part, because they fear nonimplementation of their decisions. I test this theory by utilizing a recent study of judicial power, which finds the Court enjoys greater implementation power in “vertical” cases (those involving criminal and civil liability) than in “lateral” cases (all others; e.g., those involving schools or government agencies). I find that Court constraint is strongest in important lateral cases—those cases in which implementation depends on support from nonjudicial actors. My findings suggest that Supreme Court constraint is driven by the justices' fear of nonimplementation and is, therefore, dependent on institutional context.     

State Merit Amicus Participation and Federalism Outcomes in the U.S. Supreme Court

Research suggests that merit amicus curiae participation correlateswith Supreme Court decision making and that states make frequentand effective use of this tool. To date, however, no study hasadequately examined the relationship between state amicus participationand the federalism values reflected in the Court's decisions.This article dev"Lelops and finds evidence for the assertionthat, when they cooperate in the amicus process, state participationis associated with an increase in the likelihood of rulingsfavoring state rather than national government power.     

State Sovereignty and the Eleventh Amendment in the U.S. Supreme Court: The 1988 Term

During its 1988 term, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed two importantaspects of the Eleventh Amendment, which generally protectsstates from being sued in federal courts. First, the Court heldthat the Congress has power to abrogate states' immunity fromsuit—to subject states to suits in federal courts fordamages—under Congress' expansive commerce-clause power.Second, the Court made clear that such abrogation would be foundonly where the text of the statute itself, as distinct fromits legislative history, clearly and specifically so provided.This article describes these decisions, and analyzes some oftheir implications for judicial federalism.     

Beyond Gratz and Grutter: Prospects for Affirmative Action in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court's Michigan Decisions

This article explores the meaning of the Supreme Court's Michigan decisions and their implications for higher education in the judicial, political, and social–cultural context. It concludes that the complex and dynamic interplay of judicial policymaking, politics and public opinion, and demographic changes could have important consequences, including unanticipated ones, in the years ahead.     

The Institutionalization of the U.S. Supreme Court

In pursuing their goals, members of the U.S. Supreme Court areaffected by their institutional setting. How has that institutionalenvironment changed over time and what have been the politicalconsequences of those changes? Despite considerable analysisof the institutional dynamics of legislatures and executives,political scientists have been slow to bring time series techniquesto the study of the Supreme Court, and as a result much lessis known about its evolutionary path. Measuring a variety oforganizational characteristics, I construct an index of theinstitutionalization of the Supreme Court from 1790 to 1996.This indicator suggests that the integration of the Court intothe system of federal policy making has better enabled the justicesto satisfy their objectives. To demonstrate this empirically,I test a series of error correction models of judicial influence,each of which confirms that the nature of the Supreme Court'scharacter has had considerable implications for the scope ofthe justices' legal and political impact. These results underscorethe need for judicial scholars to examine the Court's policymaking in longitudinal perspective.     

Federal Court Responses to State and Local Claims of "Undue Burden" in Complying with The Americans with Disabilities Act

Are federal courts sympathetic to local and state officials'cost concerns, particularly when it comes to meeting the requirementsof the Americans with Disabilities Act? This is the fundamentalquery taken up by this analysis. After examining twenty-eightfederal ADA cases where state and local officials have goneto court claiming that complying with this civil rights measurewould be unduly burdensome, this study comes up with mixed findings.In some cases, the courts have been sensitive to cost concernsbut, in others, they have not. Despite these inconclusive findings,this study does cast some light on what state and local officialsmust do if they expect federal courts to be sensitive to theirconcerns.     

Local Government and Strategies for Decentralization in the "State of the Autonomies"

The convergent forces of democratization, decentralization,the welfare state, and international integration have made Spanishlocal governments similar to their equivalents in other partsof Europe. Nevertheless, local governments are the most poorlydefined part of the post-Franco puzzle of reform. This articletraces the history and development of Spanish local governmentwithin the emerging state of the autonomies, and examines theirambivalent position and uncertain future. Despite the greatertransformative emphasis on building federal arrangements throughthe autonomous communities, local governments play importantroles in establishing self-rule and shared rule.     

Jefferson and Executive Power: Revisionism and the "Revolution of 1800"

Thomas Jefferson's varied and divergent statements concerningthe nature and extent of executive power seem to defy interpretation.Evidence can be gathered to support the proposition that Jeffersonwas a determined foe of Hamilton's conception of the chief executiveor that he was an active partisan of that view. The argumentof this article is that as opportunities arose, Jefferson setout to revise the public understanding of the formal powersof the president and, in so doing, moved away from his earlierposition on the extent of those powers. Jefferson's purposewas to check what he perceived to be the dangerous "monarchic"designs of the Federalists and, in turn, reinvigorate the republicanspirit of the regime. At the same time, Jefferson did not discardhis appreciation for the necessity of resorting at times toan enlarged executive authority. How Jefferson set about tobalance these elements in his revised conception of the presidencyraises in a direct fashion key questions about the role of executivepower in a popular government dedicated to the rule of law.     

Medicaid in the 1990s: Trends, Innovations, and the Future of the "PAC-Man" of State Budgets

Rapidly escalating health-care inflation and congressionallymandated expansions have led to large increases in spendingfor Medicaid, the federal-state program of health care for thepoor. These increases came at a time when state budgets werealready under recession-induced stresses. In addition, 1991brought new pressures for Medicaid spending from the courtsand closer federal scrutiny and control over revenues used forthe program's state "match." Yet the Medicaid picture is farfrom bleak. Diversity, innovation, and an emerging stale policyrole also characterize the program in ways that epitomize thestrengths and weaknesses of the American intergovernmental system.     

Unanimous decision making on the U.S. Supreme Court: Case stimuli and judicial attitudes

Although behavioral scholars have devoted much time and energy to attempting to explain decision making on the U.S. Supreme Court, they have virtually ignored the unanimous decision. We investigated the Vinson, Warren, and Burger Courts and discovered that the liberal outcome was more successful in the unanimous cases whether those cases involve civil liberties or economic liberalism and whether they were decisions to reverse or decisions to affirm. We also ascertained that the ideological position that tended to win in the unanimous reverse cases was related to the ideological position that tended to win in the nonunanimous reverse cases, but that no such relationship was present in the two kinds of affirm cases. These two findings are in conformity with a psychometric model, which posits that the relative position of judicial attitudes and case stimuli determines the vote on the U.S. Supreme Court.     

The State of U.S. Federalism: 1998-1999

In 1998–1999, changing federalism in the United Statesmeant that states have greater discretion in some areas of socialpolicy while Congress has asserted greater influence over issuesof culture and crime. Despite the rhetoric about decisions beingbest made by states and localities, Congress continues to takeon new areas, such as health privacy. In the meantime, the U.S.Supreme Court's sustained focus on issues of federalism intensified,with states' rights continuing to receive emphasis, even thoughthe Court upheld federal power in selected cases and refusedto sanction state actions in others.     

Network Analysis and the Law: Measuring the Legal Importance of Precedents at the U.S. Supreme Court

Timothy R. Johnson Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, 1414 Social Sciences Building, 267 19th Ave. South, Minneapolis, MN 55455 e-mail: trj{at}umn.edu James F. Spriggs, II Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis, Campus Box 1063, One Brookings Drive, St Louis, MO 63130 e-mail: jspriggs{at}artsci.wustl.edu Sangick Jeon Department of Political Science, Stanford University, 616 Serra Street, Encina Hall West, Room 100, Stanford, CA 94305-6044 e-mail: sjeon{at}stanford.edu Paul J. Wahlbeck Department of Political Science, George Washington University, 1922 F Street, N.W. Suite 401, Washington, DC 20052 e-mail: wahlbeck{at}gwu.edu e-mail: jhfowler{at}ucsd.edu (corresponding author) We construct the complete network of 26,681 majority opinionswritten by the U.S. Supreme Court and the cases that cite themfrom 1791 to 2005. We describe a method for using the patternsin citations within and across cases to create importance scoresthat identify the most legally relevant precedents in the networkof Supreme Court law at any given point in time. Our measuresare superior to existing network-based alternatives and, forexample, offer information regarding case importance not evidentin simple citation counts. We also demonstrate the validityof our measures by showing that they are strongly correlatedwith the future citation behavior of state courts, the U.S.Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. In so doing,we show that network analysis is a viable way of measuring howcentral a case is to law at the Court and suggest that it canbe used to measure other legal concepts. Authors' note: We appreciate the suggestions of Randy Calvert,Frank Cross, Pauline Kim, Andrew Martin, Richard Pacelle, JimRogers, Margo Schlanger, Amy Steigerwalt, and participants inthe Workshop on Empirical Research in the Law at WashingtonUniversity in St Louis School of Law. We presented former versionsof this article at the 2006 meeting of the Midwest PoliticalScience Association, Chicago, April 20–23; the 2006 meetingof the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA,January 5–7; and the 2006 Empirical Legal Studies Conference,Austin, TX, October 27–28.     

I Respectfully Dissent: Consensus, Agendas, and Policymaking on the U.S. Supreme Court, 1888–1999

Scholars have been intrigued by the abrupt change in the rate of nonconsensual opinions that the Supreme Court has published over time, which substantially increased beginning with the battles concerning the court's New Deal transition in the 1930s. Notwithstanding, none of the prior studies on this topic has made any link, whether theoretical or empirical, between the Supreme Court's issuance of these special opinions and the justices’ policy preferences. We utilize fractional cointegration to examine the relationship between consensus, agendas, and decisionmaking on the Supreme Court. We find that there is a systematic interrelation between the justices’ policy preferences and their issuance of nonconsensual opinions that is dependent upon the policy agenda before the court. In turn, this connection influences the court's policy outcomes, demonstrating that the justices’ behavior regarding nonconsensual opinion writing is a classic example of judicial policymaking.     

The Fiscal Impact of Federal and State Aid to Large U.S. Cities: An Empirical Analysis of Budgetary Response

This article examines four types of aid programs to thirty-nine large U.S. cities federal revenue sharing, federal categorical aid, state general aid, and state categorical aid. The central finding is that there is significant variation in the magnitude of property tax reduction resulting from different types of state general aid. Property tax credits and exemptions are less effective approaches in reducing local property taxes than are state lump-sum aid or city use of piggybacked taxes Categorical state and federal aid mostly fund additional city spending and have small but important stimulative effects on the revenue side These results suggest that differences in the design of aid programs have important implications for their fiscal impact and their effectiveness in reducing property taxes.