This study examines elite (New York Times and Washington Post) and populace (USA Today) media decisions to cover and to intensively cover U.S. Supreme Court outcomes in criminal procedure cases decided in the 1994 through 2010 terms. Two central constructs—case salience and decisional case complexity—are developed as a framework within which to understand media decisions. Case salience is conceptualized both in terms of contextual case salience (measured as the number of amicus curiae briefs filed on the merits) and issue-based case salience (cases that concern the fourth and eighth amendments). Decisional case complexity is measured as the number of unique majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions published as part of the case decision. The study utilizes measures from the U.S. Supreme Court Database developed by Harold Spaeth, supplemented with primary data collection of media articles and amicus curiae briefs. The study finds that case salience measures are the most powerful predictor variables for the decision to publish in both elite and populace press. Case salience measures are also the most dominant set of variables in explaining overall intensity of coverage in populace press. Decisional case complexity is the most important explanatory predictor of overall intensity of coverage in elite press. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.
BarnesR. (2012, January 24). Supreme Court restricts police GPS tracking. Washington Post, A1.
2.
BiskupicJ. (2001, June 12). Justices rule for privacy: Police use of thermal imaging called an unreasonable search. USA Today, 10A.
3.
BiskupicJ. (2012, January 24). Supreme Court rules GPS tracking requires warrant: Justices differed on the rationale. USA Today, A1.
4.
BowlesD. A.BromleyR. V. (1992). Newsmagazine coverage of the Supreme Court during the Reagan administration. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 948–959.
5.
BraceP.BoyeaB. (2008). State public opinion, the death penalty, and the practice of electing judges. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 360–372.
6.
BrennerS. (1980). Fluidity on the United States Supreme Court: A re-examination. American Journal of Science, 24, 526–535.
7.
BringJ. (1994). How to standardize regression coefficients. American Statistician, 48, 209–213.
8.
BucklerK. G.DavilaM.WilsonS. (2011). U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Fourth Amendment cases (1961-2009): A test of the legal subculture, democratic subculture, negotiation/synthesis, resource capability, and social background hypotheses. Criminal Justice Review, 36, 393–413.
9.
CaldeiraG. A.WrightJ. R. (1988). Organized interests and agenda setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 82, 1109–1127.
10.
CroteauD.HoynesW. (2001). The business of media: Corporate media and the public interest. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
11.
DanelskiD. J. (1979). The influence of the Chief Justice in the decisional process. In MurphyW. F.PritchettC. H. (Eds.), Courts, judges, and politics (pp. 497–508). New York, NY: Random House.
12.
Editorial Board. (2012, January 26). A narrow position. Washington Post, A18.
13.
Editorial Desk. (2001, June 14). Privacy protection. New York Times, A32.
14.
Editorial Desk. (2012, January 26). GPS and the right to privacy. New York Times, A30.
15.
EpsteinL.KnightJ. (1995). Documenting strategic interaction on the U.S. Supreme Court. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
16.
EpsteinL.KnightJ. (1998). The choices justices make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
17.
EpsteinL.SegalJ. A. (2000). Measuring issue salience. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 66–83.
18.
EricsonD. (1977). Newspaper coverage of the Supreme Court: A case study. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 605–607.
19.
EverbackT. (2011). A “wise Latina” and a son of immigrants: Comparing newspaper coverage of Sonia Sotomayor and Samuel Alito. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal, 26, 1–14.
20.
FaganF.WestV. (2005). The decline of the juvenile death penalty: Scientific evidence of evolving norms. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95, 427–497.
21.
FradellaH. F.MorrowW. J.FischerR. G.IrelandC. (2011). Quantifying Katz: Empirically measuring “reasonable expectations of privacy” in the fourth amendment context. American Journal of Criminal Law, 38, 289–373.
22.
GreenhouseL. (2001, June 12). The Supreme Court: Ruling on surveillance procedures: Justices say warrant is required in high-tech searches of home. New York Times, A1.
23.
HainesD. (1977). Rolling back the top on Chief Justice Burger’s opinion assignment desk. University of Pittsburg Law Review, 38, 631–695.
24.
HolcombJ. E.WilliamsM. R.DemuthS. (2004). White female victims and disparity research. Justice Quarterly, 21, 887–902.
25.
JohnsonT.SockerE. (2012). Actions, factions, and interactions: Newsworthy influences on Supreme Court coverage. Social Science Quarterly, 93, 434–463.
26.
KatshE. (1983). The Supreme Court beat: How television covers the United States Supreme Court. Judicature, 67, 6–11.
27.
KesslerD. K. (2009). Free to leave? An empirical look at the Fourth Amendment’s seizure standard. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99, 51–88.
28.
KingE. G. (1990). Thematic coverage of the 1988 presidential primaries: A comparison of USA Today and The New York Times. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 83–87.
29.
LiptakA. (2012, January 24). Justices reject GPS tracking in a drug case. New York Times, A1.
30.
LynchK. (2004). Best friends?: Supreme Court law clerks on effective amicus curiae briefs. Journal of Law and Politics, 20, 33.
31.
MaltzmanF.WahlbeckP. J. (1996). May it please the Chief? Opinion assignments in the Rehnquist Court. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 421–443.
32.
MaltzmanF.WahlbeckP. J. (2003). Salience or politics: New York Times coverage of the Supreme Court. Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
33.
MaltzmanF.WahlbeckP. J. (2005). Opinion assignment on the Rehnquist court. Judicature, 89, 121–181.
34.
ManskiC. F.PepperJ. V. (2013). Deterrence and the death penalty: Partial identification analysis using repeated cross sections. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29, 123–141.
35.
MartinP. (1998). Reassessing the attitudinal approach: Case significance and votes on the merits. Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
36.
MooneyC.LeeM. (2000). The influence of values on consensus and contentious morality policy: U.S. death penalty reform, 1956-1982. Journal of Politics, 62, 223–239.
37.
National Desk. (2001, June 12). Excerpts from Supreme Court ruling on limits on surveillance technology. New York Times, A29.
38.
NewlandC. A. (1964). Press coverage of the United States Supreme Court. Western Political Quarterly, 17, 15–36.
39.
O’BrienT. (1983). Yes, but …Judicature, 67, 12–14.
40.
O’CallaghanJ.DukesJ. O. (1992). Media coverage of the Supreme Court’s caseload. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 195–203.
41.
PerryH. W. (1991). Deciding to decide. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
PrichardD.HughesK. (1997). Patterns of deviance in crime news. Journal of Communication, 47, 49–67.
45.
RohdeD. W. (1972). Policy goals, strategic choice, and majority opinion assignments in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 16, 653–682.
46.
RoncekD. W. (1996, April). A simple measure for assessing the relative importance of independent variables in one-sample Poisson and negative binomial regression. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Sociological Society, Chicago, IL.
47.
SalzmanR.WilliamsC. J.CalvinB. T. (2011). The determinants of the number of amicus briefs filed before the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-2001. Justice System Journal, 32, 293–313.
48.
SchebJ. M.LyonsW.WagersK. A. (2008). Race, prosecutors, and juries: The death penalty in Tennessee. Justice System Journal, 29, 338–347.
49.
SegalJ. A.SpaethH. J. (1993). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
50.
SegalJ. A.SpaethH. J. (1996). The influences of stare decisis on the vote of the United States Supreme Court justices. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 971–1003.
51.
SillK. L.UraJ. D.HaynieS. L. (2010). Strategic passing and opinion assignment on the Burger Court. Justice System Journal, 31, 164–179.
52.
SloboginC.SchumacherJ. E. (1993). Reasonable expectations of privacy and autonomy in Fourth Amendment cases: An empirical look at “understandings recognized and permitted by society”. Duke Law Review, 42, 727.
53.
SlotnickE. (1978). The Chief Justice and self assignment of majority opinions. Western Political Quarterly, 12, 318–332.
54.
SlotnickE. (1979). Who speaks for the Court? Majority opinion assignment from Taft to Burger. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 60–75.
55.
SlotnickE. (1991). Media coverage of Supreme Court decision making: Problems and prospect. Judicature, 75, 128–142.
56.
SobelL. (1970). News coverage of the Supreme Court. American Bar Association Journal, 56, 547–551.
57.
SolimineM. E. (1980). Newsmagazine coverage of the Supreme Court. Journalism Quarterly, 57, 661–663.
58.
SolowiejL. A.CollinsP. M.Jr (2009). Counteractive lobbying in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Politics Research, 37, 670.
59.
StevensJ. P. (1990). Dissenting opinion in United States v. Dalm. 494 U.S.596.
60.
TarpleyJ. D. (1984). American newsmagazine coverage of the Supreme Court, 1978-81. Journalism Quarterly, 61, 801–826.
61.
UlmerS. (1970). The use of power in the Supreme Court: The opinion assignments of Earl Warren, 1953-1960. Journal of Public Law, 19, 49–67.
62.
ViningR. L.WilhelmT. (2010). Explaining high-profile coverage of state Supreme Court decisions. Social Science Quarterly, 91, 704–723.
63.
WalshE. (2001, June 12). High-tech devices require a warrant; Court: Search violates privacy right. Washington Post, A1.
64.
WestinA. F. (2003). Social and political dimensions of privacy. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 431–453.
65.
WittE. (1990). Congressional quarterly’s guide to the Supreme court, 2nd. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
66.
WoodD. (2012). When to hold, when to fold, and when to reshuffle: The art of decision-making on a multi-member court. California Law Review, 100, 1445–1477.
67.
WoolardJ. L.ClearyH. M. D.HarvellS. A. S.ChenR. (2008). Examining adolescents’ and their parents’ conceptual and practical knowledge of police interrogation: A family dyad approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 685–698.
68.
YanusA. B. (2009). Full-court press: An examination of media coverage of state supreme court decisions. Justice System Journal, 30, 180–195.
