IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v96y2002i02p305-320_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • RICHARDS, MARK J.
  • KRITZER, HERBERT M.

Abstract

We theorize that if law matters in Supreme Court decision making, it matters not as a mechanistic force that dictates decisions, but as an institutional construct created by justices who possess political attitudes. Jurisprudential regimes identify relevant case factors and/or set the level of scrutiny or balancing the justices will use. These jurisprudential regimes have the potential to make a significant difference in the decisions of the justices. We identify a candidate jurisprudential regime, content-neutrality, which appears to govern the general area of free expression law. The Court applies the strictest standard of review to regulations of expression that target the content or viewpoint of expression. Relying on a series of statistical tests using logistic regression, we find that the justices take seriously this jurisprudential regime.

Suggested Citation

  • Richards, Mark J. & Kritzer, Herbert M., 2002. "Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(2), pages 305-320, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:96:y:2002:i:02:p:305-320_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055402000187/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hoffmann, Jakob & Glückler, Johannes & Khuchua, Tamar & Lachapelle, Francois & Lazega, Emmanuel & Zipf, Marius, 2024. "Legalist and realist decision-making in patent law: Validity cases in Germany," SocArXiv p354r, Center for Open Science.
    2. JBrandon Duck-Mayr, 2022. "Explaining legal inconsistency," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 34(1), pages 107-126, January.
    3. Anthony Niblett & Richard A. Posner & Andrei Shleifer, 2010. "The Evolution of a Legal Rule," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(2), pages 325-358.
    4. Greg Goelzhauser, 2024. "Constitutional accountability for police shootings," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 92-108, March.
    5. Keren Weinshall & Udi Sommer & Ya'acov Ritov, 2018. "Ideological influences on governance and regulation: The comparative case of supreme courts," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 334-352, September.
    6. Michael Evans & Wayne McIntosh & Jimmy Lin & Cynthia Cates, 2007. "Recounting the Courts? Applying Automated Content Analysis to Enhance Empirical Legal Research," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(4), pages 1007-1039, December.
    7. Hossain, Ashrafee & Rjiba, Hatem & Saadi, Samir, 2022. "Judge Ideology and Corporate Sexual Orientation Equality," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    8. Justin Wedeking, 2010. "Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 617-631, July.
    9. David Gliksberg, 2014. "Does the Law Matter? Win Rates and Law Reforms," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 378-407, June.
    10. Paul M. Collins, Jr. & Wendy L. Martinek, 2011. "The Small Group Context: Designated District Court Judges in the U.S. Courts of Appeals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 177-205, March.
    11. Jonathan P. Kastellec & Jeffrey R. Lax, 2008. "Case Selection and the Study of Judicial Politics," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 407-446, September.
    12. Christoph Engel, 2024. "The German Constitutional Court – Activist, but not Partisan?," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2024_04, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    13. Allen Huang & Kai Wai Hui & Reeyarn Zhiyang Li, 2019. "Federal Judge Ideology: A New Measure of Ex Ante Litigation Risk," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 431-489, May.

    More about this item

    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:cup:apsrev:v:96:y:2002:i:02:p:305-320_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    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.