IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v26y2014i3p355-383.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Narrow versus broad judicial decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Justin Fox

    (Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis, USA)

  • Georg Vanberg

    (Department of Political Science, Duke University, USA)

Abstract

A central debate among judges and legal scholars concerns the appropriate scope of judicial opinions: should decisions be narrow, and stick to the facts at hand, or should they be broad, and provide guidance in related contexts? A central argument for judicial ‘minimalism’ holds that judges should rule narrowly because they lack the knowledge required to make general rules to govern unknown future circumstances. In this paper, we challenge this argument. Our argument focuses on the fact that, by shaping the legal landscape, judicial decisions affect the policies that are adopted, and that may therefore subsequently be challenged before the court. Using a simple model, we demonstrate that in such a dynamic setting, in which current decisions shape future cases, judges with limited knowledge confront incentives to rule broadly precisely because they are ignorant.

Suggested Citation

  • Justin Fox & Georg Vanberg, 2014. "Narrow versus broad judicial decisions," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 26(3), pages 355-383, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:26:y:2014:i:3:p:355-383
    DOI: 10.1177/0951629813502709
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629813502709
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951629813502709?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kreps, David M & Wilson, Robert, 1982. "Sequential Equilibria," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 863-894, July.
    2. Kornhauser, Lewis A., 1992. "Modeling collegial courts I: Path-dependence," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 169-185, June.
    3. Charles M. Cameron, 2007. "Bargaining and Opinion Assignment on the US Supreme Court," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 276-302, June.
    4. Sundaram,Rangarajan K., 1996. "A First Course in Optimization Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521497190, September.
    5. Scott Baker & Claudio Mezzetti, 2012. "A Theory of Rational Jurisprudence," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 120(3), pages 513-551.
    6. Lax, Jeffrey R., 2007. "Constructing Legal Rules on Appellate Courts," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(3), pages 591-604, August.
    7. Jeffrey K. Staton & Georg Vanberg, 2008. "The Value of Vagueness: Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 504-519, July.
    8. Sundaram,Rangarajan K., 1996. "A First Course in Optimization Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521497701, September.
    9. Anthony Niblett, 2013. "Case-by-Case Adjudication and the Path of the Law," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(2), pages 303-330.
    10. Giri Parameswaran, 2012. "Ruling Narrowly: Learning and Law Creation," Working Papers 1419, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Econometric Research Program..
    11. Cliff Carrubba & Barry Friedman & Andrew D. Martin & Georg Vanberg, 2012. "Who Controls the Content of Supreme Court Opinions?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(2), pages 400-412, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ying Chen & Hulya Eraslan, 2018. "Learning While Setting Precedents," Koç University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum Working Papers 1810, Koc University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum.
    2. Howell, William & Shepsle, Kenneth & Wolton, Stephane, 2020. "Executive Absolutism: A Model," MPRA Paper 98221, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Tom S Clark, 2016. "Scope and precedent: judicial rule-making under uncertainty," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(3), pages 353-384, July.
    2. Bustos, Álvaro & Tiller, Emerson H., 2021. "Authorial control of the Supreme Court: Chief Justice Roberts and the Obamacare surprise," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    3. Anthony Niblett, 2013. "Case-by-Case Adjudication and the Path of the Law," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(2), pages 303-330.
    4. Adam B. Badawi & Scott Baker, 2015. "Appellate Lawmaking in a Judicial Hierarchy," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(1), pages 139-172.
    5. Charles M. Cameron & Lewis A. Kornhauser, 2017. "Rational choice attitudinalism?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 535-554, June.
    6. Sean Farhang & Jonathan P. Kastellec & Gregory J. Wawro, 2015. "The Politics of Opinion Assignment and Authorship on the US Court of Appeals: Evidence from Sexual Harassment Cases," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 59-85.
    7. Brett, Craig & Weymark, John A., 2016. "Voting over selfishly optimal nonlinear income tax schedules with a minimum-utility constraint," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 18-31.
    8. Gonzalez, Stéphane & Rostom, Fatma Zahra, 2022. "Sharing the global outcomes of finite natural resource exploitation: A dynamic coalitional stability perspective," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 1-10.
    9. Sawada, Hiroyuki & Yan, Xiu-Tian, 2004. "Application of Gröbner bases and quantifier elimination for insightful engineering design," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 135-148.
    10. John Duggan & Joanne Roberts, 2002. "Implementing the Efficient Allocation of Pollution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1070-1078, September.
    11. John Stachurski, 2009. "Economic Dynamics: Theory and Computation," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262012774, April.
    12. Raffaella Giacomini & Toru Kitagawa, 2021. "Robust Bayesian Inference for Set‐Identified Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(4), pages 1519-1556, July.
    13. Depetris Chauvin, Nicolas & Porto, Guido G., 2011. "Market Competition in Export Cash Crops and Farm Income," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126159, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Tina Kao & Flavio Menezes & John Quiggin, 2014. "Optimal access regulation with downstream competition," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 75-93, February.
    15. JoonHwan Cho & Thomas M. Russell, 2018. "Simple Inference on Functionals of Set-Identified Parameters Defined by Linear Moments," Papers 1810.03180, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    16. Nirav Mehta, 2017. "Competition In Public School Districts: Charter School Entry, Student Sorting, And School Input Determination," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1089-1116, November.
    17. Rasch, Alexander & Wambach, Achim, 2009. "Internal decision-making rules and collusion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 703-715, November.
    18. Achal Bassamboo & J. Michael Harrison & Assaf Zeevi, 2009. "Pointwise Stationary Fluid Models for Stochastic Processing Networks," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 70-89, August.
    19. Zachary Feinstein, 2015. "Financial Contagion and Asset Liquidation Strategies," Papers 1506.00937, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2016.
    20. Calthrop, Edward & Proost, Stef, 2006. "Regulating on-street parking," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 29-48, January.

    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:sae:jothpo:v:26:y:2014:i:3:p:355-383. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.