Opinion Construction in the Roberts Court

The Supreme Court's main output is the decision on the merits. Little is known, however, about how such decisions are constructed. This article is one of the first to look at the way Supreme Court opinions are constructed by examining the impact of the core linguistic resources at the Court's disposal. It does so in a novel manner by measuring the Court's reliance on wording from parties’ merits filings, amicus briefs, and lower‐court opinions between the 2005 and 2014 terms. To accomplish this goal, the article compares language in over 13,000 documents in the Court's docket during this period with their respective majority opinions. The article then looks at the relative impact of parties’ briefs and filings, amicus curiae briefs, and lower‐court opinions on the Court's majority opinion language. This article provides both macro– and microlevel analyses by locating the relative effects of these linguistic resources on the Court's overall opinion language as well as by breaking these findings down by individual justice. In the aggregate, this article finds that, of the three resources analyzed, the Court tends to use language from parties’ merits briefs most frequently, then wording from lower‐court opinions, and the least from amicus briefs, but that differences in case level factors shift the relative utility of each of these three resources.     

A short history of studying incremental institutional change: Does Explaining Institutional Change provide any new explanations?

Kathleen Thelen is one of the leading scholars studying incremental institutional change. In her early works from the 1990s, she introduced the conceptualization of different modes of incremental change. These modes have central attention in her recent co-edited book with James Mahoney, Explaining Institutional Change (2010). Compared with Thelen's earlier work, this book provides clearer definitions, addresses the explanatory factors of institutional change, and discusses the patterns and sequences of gradual institutional change. The theory presented by Mahoney and Thelen, however, seems overambitious and subject to a need to be overly crisp and clear.     

Neighborhood structure differences between homicide victims and non-victims

While there were numerous studies documenting the neighborhood characteristics that led to increased risk of crime victimization, very little was done to compare the neighborhoods of homicide victims to non-victims. The current research used the case-control design to alleviate this gap in the research. A sample of homicide victims and non-victims collected from Prince George's County, Maryland, in 1993, was used to make these comparisons. Significant differences were noted in the macro-level measures of education, unemployment, household income, and percentage of female-headed households in the neighborhoods of victims and non-victims. Individual elements, such as age, race, gender, and arrest were also strongly associated with the risk of homicide victimization. Both macro and micro level variables needed to be included when studying factors that increased the risk of homicide victimization.     

'Talking in Fictions': Jennings on Parliament

Sir Ivor Jennings made many ground-breaking contributions to the study of Parliament. Among them are two books written in the 1930s, while Jennings was at the peak of his powers: Parliamentary Reform in 1934, ¹ and Parliament in 1939. ² This essay offers an assessment of Jennings' scholarship on Parliament. It commences with some observations on his method, and this is followed by an outline of the argument in Parliament and an appraisal of the book's originality and ongoing significance. The essay closes with some brief remarks concerning Jennings' Parliamentary Reform .     

A Test of Competing Hypotheses about Homicide Following Terrorist Attacks: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis of September 11 and Oklahoma City

There is substantial evidence that catastrophic events, including terrorist attacks, lead to increased levels of post-traumatic stress, especially in communities in close proximity to the incident. Some scholars also argue that these events disrupt social organization. On the other hand, many contend that these incidents produce social cohesion as community members coalesce to help each other in time of need. These ideas have resulted in competing hypotheses in the literature. The first is that violence will increase in the wake of catastrophic events due to heightened levels of individual stress and community disorganization. The second is that violence will decline after these events because of increased social cohesion, especially in the face of an outside threat. In order to test these competing hypotheses, we employed autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) techniques to model the impact of the Oklahoma City bombing and the September 11 attacks on monthly homicide counts at the local, state, and national level. Unlike prior studies that provided evidence of an effect but did not use rigorous time-series techniques, we found no support for either of the competing hypotheses. We conclude that while such catastrophic events may have an effect on individual and collective efficacy well beyond the immediate impact of the incidents, these effects are not strong enough to influence homicide rates. An erratum to this article can be found at