Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Some Thoughts On The Study Of Judicial Behavior, Lee Epstein
Some Thoughts On The Study Of Judicial Behavior, Lee Epstein
William & Mary Law Review
Back in the 1940s the political scientist C. Herman Pritchett began tallying the votes and opinions of Supreme Court Justices. His goal was to use data to test the hypothesis that the Justices were not only following the “law,” but were also motivated by their own ideological preferences.
With the hindsight of nearly eighty years, we know that Pritchett’s seemingly small project helped to create a big field: Judicial Behavior, which I take to be the theoretical and empirical study of the choices judges make. Political scientists continue to play a central role, but they are now joined by economists, …
Stanley V. Illinois’S Untold Story, Josh Gupta-Kagan
Stanley V. Illinois’S Untold Story, Josh Gupta-Kagan
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
Stanley v. Illinois is one of the Supreme Courts more curious landmark cases. The holding is well known: the Due Process Clause both prohibits states from removing children from the care of unwed fathers simply because they are not married and requires states to provide all parents with a hearing on their fitness. By recognizing strong due process protections for parents rights, Stanley reaffirmed Lochner-era cases that had been in doubt and formed the foundation of modern constitutional family law. But Peter Stanley never raised due process arguments, so it has long been unclear how the Court reached this decision. …
Neutral Principles And Some Campaign Finance Problems, John O. Mcginnis
Neutral Principles And Some Campaign Finance Problems, John O. Mcginnis
William & Mary Law Review
This Article has both positive and normative objectives. As a positive matter, it shows that the Roberts Courts campaign finance regulation jurisprudence can be best explained as a systematic effort to integrate that case law with the rest of the First Amendment, making the neutral principles refined in other social contexts govern this more politically salient one as well. It demonstrates that the typical Roberts Court majority in campaign finance cases follows precedent, doctrine, and traditional First Amendment theory, while the dissents tend to carve out exceptions at each of these levels.
As a normative matter, it argues that following …