A Separation-of-Powers Approach to the Supreme Court’s Shrinking Caseload

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW Journal of Law and Courts Pub Date : 2021-03-17 DOI:10.1086/714086
Elizabeth A. Lane
{"title":"A Separation-of-Powers Approach to the Supreme Court’s Shrinking Caseload","authors":"Elizabeth A. Lane","doi":"10.1086/714086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the end of the 1980s the Supreme Court has cut its caseload nearly in half. While this decrease has not gone unnoticed, researchers have largely focused their explanations on institutional factors, such as changes in personnel, creation of the certiorari pool, or an increase in the amount of discretion justices have to set their agenda. Most existing work fails to consider how the preferences of members of Congress and the president also contribute to this staggering decrease. I provide the first systematic examination of how extrainstitutional influences affect the size of the Court’s caseload. I examine the 1951–2016 terms of the Court to reveal that a constraining political environment significantly reduces the number of cases the justices agree to hear each term. These results suggest that the justices consider the preferences of actors in the other branches of government much earlier than their decisions on the merits.","PeriodicalId":44478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Courts","volume":"10 1","pages":"1 - 12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/714086","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Courts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/714086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Since the end of the 1980s the Supreme Court has cut its caseload nearly in half. While this decrease has not gone unnoticed, researchers have largely focused their explanations on institutional factors, such as changes in personnel, creation of the certiorari pool, or an increase in the amount of discretion justices have to set their agenda. Most existing work fails to consider how the preferences of members of Congress and the president also contribute to this staggering decrease. I provide the first systematic examination of how extrainstitutional influences affect the size of the Court’s caseload. I examine the 1951–2016 terms of the Court to reveal that a constraining political environment significantly reduces the number of cases the justices agree to hear each term. These results suggest that the justices consider the preferences of actors in the other branches of government much earlier than their decisions on the merits.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对最高法院案件量减少的分权处理
自20世纪80年代末以来,最高法院已将案件数量减少了近一半。虽然这种减少并没有被忽视,但研究人员在很大程度上将他们的解释集中在制度因素上,如人事变动、调卷库的创建,或法官必须制定议程的自由裁量权数量的增加。大多数现有的工作都没有考虑到国会议员和总统的偏好是如何导致这一惊人的下降的。我首次系统地审查了机构外影响如何影响法院案件数量。我研究了1951年至2016年的最高法院任期,发现约束性的政治环境大大减少了大法官每届任期同意审理的案件数量。这些结果表明,法官们考虑政府其他部门行为者的偏好要早于他们对案情的决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Quality in Measurement Matters: Adjusted American Bar Association Ratings and Circuit Court Confirmation Hearing Word Choice Lower Court Influence on High Courts: Evidence from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Political Competition and Judicial Independence: How Courts Fill the Void When Legislatures Are Ineffective The Impact of Oral Argument Attendance Is the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Vulnerable to Intense Appointment Politics? Democrats’ Changed Views Around Justice Ginsburg’s Death – CORRIGENDUM
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1