Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Strategic Behavior And Variation In The Supreme Court’S Caseload Over Time, Kenneth W. Moffett, Forrest Maltzman, Karen Miranda, Charles R. Shipan
Strategic Behavior And Variation In The Supreme Court’S Caseload Over Time, Kenneth W. Moffett, Forrest Maltzman, Karen Miranda, Charles R. Shipan
SIUE Faculty Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity
Over the past sixty years, the size of the Supreme Court’s docket has varied tremendously, growing at some points in time and shrinking at others. What accounts for this variation in the size of the docket? We focus on two key strategic factors – the predictability of outcomes within the Court, and whether justices consider the potential actions of other political institutions – and assess whether these factors help to explain the variation in docket size over time. We discover that uncertainty and institutional constraints prevent the Court from choosing cases with complete freedom, even after accounting for other potential …
Judicial Activism’S Effect On Judicial Elections, Nick Fernandes
Judicial Activism’S Effect On Judicial Elections, Nick Fernandes
Student Scholar Symposium Abstracts and Posters
High profile Supreme Court cases have become increasingly commonplace, particularly with the Citizens United court decision granting unprecedented rights to corporations. Many in the media have decried these as examples of increasing “judicial activism”. This trend has trickled down to the state supreme courts as justices have increasingly played a more active role in developing policy. Gay marriage has become legalized in numerous states due to this trend. While public sentiment is unlikely to affect the appointed Supreme Court, it could have a substantial impact on state judicial elections.
This paper will specifically be looking at judicial elections in Kentucky. …
Courtroom To Classroom: Judicial Policymaking And Affirmative Action, Dylan Britton Saul
Courtroom To Classroom: Judicial Policymaking And Affirmative Action, Dylan Britton Saul
Political Science Honors Projects
The judicial branch, by exercising judicial review, can replace public policies with ones of their own creation. To test the hypothesis that judicial policymaking is desirable only when courts possess high capacity and necessity, I propose an original model incorporating six variables: generalism, bi-polarity, minimalism, legitimization, structural impediments, and public support. Applying the model to a comparative case study of court-sanctioned affirmative action policies in higher education and K-12 public schools, I find that a lack of structural impediments and bi-polarity limits the desirability of judicial race-based remedies in education. Courts must restrain themselves when engaging in such policymaking.
A Functional Theory Of Congressional Standing, Jonathan R. Nash
A Functional Theory Of Congressional Standing, Jonathan R. Nash
Faculty Articles
The Supreme Court has offered scarce and inconsistent guidance on congressional standing—that is, when houses of Congress or members of Congress have Article III standing. The Court’s most recent foray into congressional standing has prompted lower courts to infuse analysis with separation-of-powers concerns in order to erect a high standard for congressional standing. It has also invited the Department of Justice to argue that Congress lacks standing to enforce subpoenas against executive branch actors.
Injury to congressional litigants should be defined by reference to Congress’s constitutional functions. Those functions include gathering relevant information, casting votes, and (even when no vote …
Litigating State Interests: Attorneys General As Amici, Margaret H. Lemos, Kevin M. Quinn
Litigating State Interests: Attorneys General As Amici, Margaret H. Lemos, Kevin M. Quinn
Faculty Articles
An important strain of federalism scholarship locates the primary value of federalism in how it carves up the political landscape, allowing groups that are out of power at the national level to flourish—and, significantly, to govern—in the states. On that account, partisanship, rather than a commitment to state authority as such, motivates state actors to act as checks on federal power. Our study examines partisan motivation in one area where state actors can, and do, advocate on behalf of state power: the Supreme Court. We compiled data on state amicus filings in Supreme Court cases from the 1979–2013 Terms and …
Preventing Balkanization Or Facilitating Racial Domination: A Critique Of The New Equal Protection, Darren L. Hutchinson
Preventing Balkanization Or Facilitating Racial Domination: A Critique Of The New Equal Protection, Darren L. Hutchinson
Faculty Articles
The Supreme Court requires that equal protection plaintiffs prove defendants acted with discriminatory intent. The intent rule has insulated from judicial invalidation numerous policies that harmfully impact racial and ethnic minorities. Court doctrine also mandates that state actors generally remain colorblind. The colorblindness doctrine has led to the judicial invalidation of policies designed to ameliorate the conditions of racial inequality. Taken together, these two equality doctrines facilitate racial domination. The Court justifies this outcome on the ground that the Constitution does not protect "group rights. "
Constitutional law theorists have criticized these aspects of equal protection doctrine. Recently, however, some …