Law Commons^™

The Second Dimension Of The Supreme Court, Joshua B. Fischman, Tonja Jacobi

Tonja Jacobi

Describing the justices of the Supreme Court as ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ has become so standard—and the left-right division on the Court is considered so entrenched—that any deviation from that pattern is treated with surprise. Attentive Court watchers know that the justices are not just politicians in robes, deciding each case on a purely ideological basis. Yet the increasingly influential empirical legal studies literature assumes just that—that a left-right ideological dimension fully describes the Supreme Court. We show that there is a second, more legally-focused dimension of judicial decision-making. A continuum between legalism and pragmatism also divides the justices, in ways …

A Positive Political Theory Of Rules And Standards, Tonja Jacobi, Frank Cross, Emerson Tiller

Tonja Jacobi

How judges choose between rules and standards fundamentally shapes case outcomes and the development of broader doctrine. While the literature has much to say about the relative merits of rules versus standards, it has largely failed to produce a comprehensive explanation of how judges make that choice. This Article takes a novel approach, using Positive Political Theory to examine the incentives of higher court judges and the information available to them about how lower court judges will be likely to use those doctrinal tools. By taking seriously both how substantive and ideological judicial preferences shape the choice over doctrinal form …

How The Dissent Becomes The Majority: Using Federalism To Transform Coalitions In The U.S. Supreme Court, Tonja Jacobi, Vanessa Baird

Tonja Jacobi

This Article proposes that dissenting Supreme Court Justices provide cues in their written opinions about how future litigants can reframe case facts and legal arguments in similar future cases to garner majority support. Questions of federal-state power cut across most other substantive legal issues, and this can provide a mechanism of splitting existing majorities in future cases. Dissenting Justices can ‘signal’ to future litigants when this potential exists, to transform a dissent into a majority in similar future cases.

We undertake an empirical investigation of dissenting opinions where the dissenting Justice suggests that future cases ought to be framed in …