IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/buc/jpredm/v9y2015i2p64-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forecasting the decisions of the US Supreme Court: lessons from the ‘affordable care act’ judgment

Author

Listed:
  • Leighton Vaughan Williams

Abstract

This paper examines the 2012 US Supreme Court consideration of the Affordable Care Act, and the resulting judgment, with a view to learning what lessons this landmark case can afford us into the way in which the US Supreme Court works, so helping us forecast its decisions. Although this is simply one judgment among many, a case is advanced here that the details of the way that the judgment was made can be used to help arbitrate between conflicting interpretations in the literature as to the way that the US Supreme Court reaches its decisions. It is argued that consideration of this case does provide particular insights which might usefully improve forecasts of future Supreme Court decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Leighton Vaughan Williams, 2015. "Forecasting the decisions of the US Supreme Court: lessons from the ‘affordable care act’ judgment," Journal of Prediction Markets, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 9(1), pages 64-78.
    • Handle: RePEc:buc:jpredm:v:9:y:2015:i:2:p:64-78
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ubplj.org/index.php/jpm/article/view/1094
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bailey, Michael A. & Maltzman, Forrest, 2008. "Does Legal Doctrine Matter? Unpacking Law and Policy Preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(3), pages 369-384, August.
    2. Paul W. Rhode & Koleman Strumpf, 2008. "Historical Political Futures Markets: An International Perspective," NBER Working Papers 14377, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Michael A. Bailey, 2007. "Comparable Preference Estimates across Time and Institutions for the Court, Congress, and Presidency," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(3), pages 433-448, July.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:18-27 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Martin, Andrew D. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 134-153, April.
    6. Lee Epstein & William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, 2010. "Inferring the Winning Party in the Supreme Court from the Pattern of Questioning at Oral Argument," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(2), pages 433-467.
    7. Paul W. Rhode & Koleman S. Strumpf, 2004. "Historical Presidential Betting Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 127-141, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Keren Weinshall‐Margel, 2011. "Attitudinal and Neo‐Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 556-586, September.
    2. Erik Snowberg & Justin Wolfers & Eric Zitzewitz, 2011. "How Prediction Markets can Save Event Studies," CAMA Working Papers 2011-07, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    3. Michael A Bailey & Albert Yoon, 2011. "‘While there’s a breath in my body’: The systemic effects of politically motivated retirement from the Supreme Court," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(3), pages 293-316, July.
    4. Thomas Ferguson & Paul Jorgensen & Jie Chen, 2018. "Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games:Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election," Working Papers Series 66, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    5. Yonatan Lupu & James H. Fowler, 2013. "Strategic Citations to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 151-186.
    6. Thomas Ferguson & Paul Jorgensen & Jie Chen, 2016. "How Money Drives US Congressional Elections," Working Papers Series 48, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    7. Daniel Lee, 2014. "Third-party threat and the dimensionality of major-party roll call voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 515-531, June.
    8. Michael A. Bailey & Anton Strezhnev & Erik Voeten, 2017. "Estimating Dynamic State Preferences from United Nations Voting Data," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(2), pages 430-456, February.
    9. Richard F. Potthoff, 2018. "Estimating Ideal Points from Roll-Call Data: Explore Principal Components Analysis, Especially for More Than One Dimension?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-27, January.
    10. Sung, Ming-Chien & McDonald, David C.J. & Johnson, Johnnie E.V. & Tai, Chung-Ching & Cheah, Eng-Tuck, 2019. "Improving prediction market forecasts by detecting and correcting possible over-reaction to price movements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(1), pages 389-405.
    11. Ferguson, Thomas & Jorgensen, Paul & Chen, Jie, 2022. "How money drives US congressional elections: Linear models of money and outcomes," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 527-545.
    12. Lucia Dalla Pellegrina & Nuno Garoupa & Marian Gili, 2020. "Estimating Judicial Ideal Points in Bi‐Dimensional Courts: Evidence from Catalonia," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 383-415, June.
    13. Spruk, Rok & Kovac, Mitja, 2019. "Replicating and extending Martin-Quinn scores," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    14. Mindock, Maxwell R. & Waddell, Glen R., 2019. "Vote Influence in Group Decision-Making: The Changing Role of Justices' Peers on the Supreme Court," IZA Discussion Papers 12317, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Joshua B. Fischman, 2015. "Do the Justices Vote Like Policy Makers? Evidence from Scaling the Supreme Court with Interest Groups," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 269-293.
    16. Niblett, Anthony & Yoon, Albert H., 2015. "Judicial disharmony: A study of dissent," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 60-71.
    17. Daniel Finke, 2009. "Domestic Politics and European Treaty Reform," European Union Politics, , vol. 10(4), pages 482-506, December.
    18. Joshua B. Fischman, 2011. "Estimating Preferences of Circuit Judges: A Model of Consensus Voting," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(4), pages 781-809.
    19. Romain Gauriot Author e-mail: romain.gauriot@nyu.edu & Lionel Page Author e-mail: lionel.page@uts.edu.au, 2021. "How Market Prices React to Information: Evidence from Binary Options Markets," Working Papers 20200058, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Oct 2021.
    20. Rorie Spill Solberg & Stefanie A. Lindquist, 2006. "Activism, Ideology, and Federalism: Judicial Behavior in Constitutional Challenges Before the Rehnquist Court, 1986–2000," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), pages 237-261, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L83 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Sports; Gambling; Restaurants; Recreation; Tourism

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:buc:jpredm:v:9:y:2015:i:2:p:64-78. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dominic Cortis, University of Malta (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ubpl.co.uk/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.