Given scarce resources, Supreme Court justices hear cases that maximize their auditing capacities. The authors argue that justices rely on the identity of lower court judges and the ideological disposition of lower court decisions to decide which cases to review. The authors find justices are most likely to audit disagreeable lower court decisions rendered by ideologically disagreeable panel judges and are least likely to review agreeable lower court decisions rendered by ideologically agreeable panel judges. Furthermore, when faced with the same ideologically disagreeable lower court decision, justices are less likely to review decisions made by ideological allies than those by ideological foes.
AiChunrongNortonEdward C.2003. Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economic Letters80:123-29.
2.
AustinPeter C.HuxJanet E.2002. A brief note on overlapping confidence intervals. Journal of Vascular Surgery36:194-95.
3.
BaileyMichael A.KamoieBrianMaltzmanForrest. 2005. Signals from the tenth justice: The political role of the solicitor general in Supreme Court decision making. American Journal of Political Science49:72-85.
4.
BaumLawrence. 1997. The puzzle of judicial behavior. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5.
BeneshSara C.BrennerSaulSpaethHarold J.2002. Aggressive grants by affirm-minded justices. American Politics Research30:219-34.
6.
BlackRyan C.OwensRyan J.2009a. Agenda-setting in the Supreme Court: The collision of policy and jurisprudence. Journal of Politics71:1062-75.
7.
BlackRyan C.OwensRyan J.2009b. Analyzing the reliability of Supreme Court justices’ agenda setting records. Justice System Journal30:254-64.
8.
BoucherRobert L.Jr.SegalJeffrey A.1995. Supreme Court justices as strategic decision makers: Aggressive grants and defensive denials on the Vinson court. Journal of Politics57:824-37.
9.
BowieJennifer BarnesSongerDonald R.2009. Assessing the applicability of strategic theory to explain decision making on the court of appeals. Political Research Quarterly62:393-407.
BrennerSaul. 1979. The new certiorari game. Journal of Politics41:649-55.
12.
CaldeiraGregory A.WrightJohn R.1988. Organized interests and agenda setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review82:1109-27.
13.
CaldeiraGregory A.WrightJohn R.ZornChristopher J. W.1999. Sophisticated voting and gate-keeping in the Supreme Court. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization15:549-72.
14.
CalvertRandall L.1985. The value of biased information: A rational choice model of political advice. Journal of Politics47:530-55.
15.
CameronCharles M.SegalJeffrey A.SongerDonald. 2000. Strategic auditing in a political hierarchy: An informational model of the Supreme Court’s certiorari decisions. American Political Science Review94:101-16.
16.
CummingGeoffFinchSue. 2005. Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist60:170-80.
17.
EpsteinLeeMartinAndrew D.SegalJeffrey A.WesterlandChad. 2007. The Judicial Common Space. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization23:303-25.
18.
EpsteinLeeMershonCarol. 1996. Measuring political preferences. American Journal of Political Science40: 262-94.
GeorgeTracey E.1999. The dynamics and determinants of the decision to grant en banc review. Washington Law Review74:213-74.
21.
GilesMichael W.HettingerVirginia A.PeppersTodd. 2001. Picking federal judges: A note on policy and partisan selection agendas. Political Research Quarterly54:623-41.
22.
GilesMichael W.HettingerVirginia A.ZornChristopherPeppersTodd C.2007. The etiology and occurrence of en banc review in the U.S. courts of appeals. American Journal of Political Science51:449-63.
23.
GilesMichael W.WalkerThomas G.ZornChristopher. 2006. Setting a judicial agenda: The decision to grant en banc review in the U.S. courts of appeals. Journal of Politics68:852-66.
24.
GinsburgDouglas H.FalkDonald. 1991. The court en banc: 1981–1990. George Washington Law Review59: 1008-91.
25.
GoldsteinHarveyHealyMichael J. R.1995. The graphical presentation of a collection of means. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A158:175-77.
26.
HaireSusanLindquistStefanie A.SongerDonald. 2003. Appellate court supervision in the federal judiciary: A hierarchical perspective. Law and Society Review37:143-68.
27.
KamCindy D.FranzeseRobert J.Jr.2007. Modeling and interpreting interactive hypotheses in regression analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
28.
KingGaryTomzMichaelWittenbergJason. 2000. Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science44:347-61.
29.
KleinDavid E.HumeRobert J.2003. Fear of reversal as an explanation of lower court compliance. Law and Society Review37:579-606.
30.
LandisJ. RichardKochGary G.1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics33:159-74.
31.
LaxJeffrey R.2003. Certiorari and compliance in the judicial hierarchy: Discretion, reputation, and the Rule of Four. Journal of Theoretical Politics15:61-86.
32.
LindquistStefanie A.HaireSusan B.SongerDonald R.2007. Supreme Court auditing of the U.S. courts of appeals: An organizational perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory17:607-24.
33.
OwensRyan J.2010. The separation of powers and Supreme Court agenda setting. American Journal of Political Science54:412-27.
34.
PalmerJan. 1982. An econometric analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s certiorari decisions. Public Choice39:387-98.
35.
PerryH. W.Jr.1991. Deciding to decide: Agenda setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
SchanzenbachMaxTillerEmerson H.2006. Strategic judging under the U.S. sentencing guidelines: Positive political theory and evidence. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization23:24-56.
37.
SongerDonald R.GinnMartha HumphrisSarverTammy A.2003. Do judges follow the law when there is no fear of reversal?Justice System Journal24:137-62.
38.
SpaethHarold J.2006. The original United States Supreme Court judicial database 1953–2005 terms. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
39.
SternRobert L.GressmanEugeneShapiroStephen M.GellerKenneth S.2002. Supreme Court practice. 8th ed.Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
40.
TillerEmerson H.SpillerPablo T.1999. Strategic instruments: Legal structure and political games in administrative law. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization15: 349-77.
41.
WoodwardBobArmstrongScott. 1979. The brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
