Scholarship on Supreme Court opinions has tended to focus on outcomes and majority opinions. This research examines the themes of justices' concurrences. The authors first ask what goals are repeatedly pursued in concurrences? The authors suggest that concurrences pursue at least one of the following activities: ground laying, weakening, signaling, or preserving. After establishing this typology of concurring behavior, the authors next ask, under what conditions do justices illustrate these behaviors? The authors code the 547 concurrences written by Rehnquist Court justices between the 1991 and 2001-2002 terms and hypothesize that a number of institutional and attitudinal variables may contribute to variation in concurring behavior. Applying logistic regression, the authors conclude that several factors, most notably citations to previous cases, the number of justices joining the concurrence, judicial ideology, workload, and the extent to which the author joins the majority opinion, are important predictors and correlates of the content of concurrences.
Bank One Chicago v. Midwest Bank & Trust Co., 516 U.S. 264 (1996).
3.
Baum, L. (1997). The puzzle of judicial behavior. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
4.
Baum, L. (2000). The Supreme Court(7th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
5.
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
6.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Brace, P., & Hall, M. G. (1993). Integrated models of judicial dissent. Journal of Politics, 55(4), 914-935.
8.
Brenner, S., & Heberlig, E. S. (2002). “In my opinion... ”: Justices’ opinion writing in the U.S. Supreme Court, 1946-1997. Social Science Quarterly, 83(3), 762-774.
9.
Brenner, S., & Spaeth, H. (1988). Ideological position as a variable in the authoring of dissenting opinions on the Warren and Burger Courts. American Politics Quarterly, 16(3), 317-328.
10.
Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992).
11.
Caldeira, G. A., & Zorn, C. J. W. (1998). Of time and consensual norms in the Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 874-902.
12.
Clayton, C. W., & Gillman, H. (1999). Supreme Court decision-making: New institutionalist approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Concurring opinions. (2002). In Supreme Court A to Z. Available in CQ Electronic Library, CQ Supreme Court Collection, scatoz-0005867381.
14.
Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001).
15.
Epstein, L., & Segal, J. A. (2000). Measuring issue salience. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 66-83.
16.
Epstein, L., Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (2001). The norm of consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 362-377.
17.
Epstein, L., Segal, J. A., Spaeth, H. J., & Walker, T. G. (2003). The Supreme Court compendium: Data, decisions, and developments(3rd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
18.
Gerber, S. D., & Park, K. (1997). The quixotic search for consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court: A cross-judicial empirical analysis of the Rehnquist Court justices. American Political Science Review, 91(2), 390-408.
19.
Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417 (1995).
20.
Harper v. Virginian Department of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993).
21.
Hausegger, L., & Baum, L. (1999). Inviting congressional action: A study of Supreme Court motivations in statutory interpretation. American Journal of Political Science, 43(1), 162-185.
22.
Keck, T. (2004). The most activist Supreme Court in history: The road to modern judicial conservatism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
24.
Maltzman, F., Spriggs, J. F., II, & Wahlbeck, P. J. (2000). Crafting law on the Supreme Court: The collegial game. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Martin, A. S., & Quinn, K. M. (2002). Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999. Political Analysis, 10(2), 134-153.
26.
Maveety, N. (2002, August 29). Concurrence and the study of judicial behavior. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
27.
Maveety, N. (2003, August 27-31). Concurring opinion writing and the bifurcation of judicial goals. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia.
28.
Moorhead, R. D. (1952). The 1952 Ross Prize Essay: Concurring and dissenting opinions. American Bar Association Journal, 38, 821-884.
29.
O’Brien, D. M. (1996). Storm center: The Supreme Court in American politics. New York: Norton.
30.
Richards, M. J., & Kritzer, H. M. (2002). Jurisprudential regimes in Supreme Court decision making, American Political Science Review, 96(2), 305-320.
31.
Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (1993). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Smith, C. E. (1991). The Supreme Court in transition: Assessing the legitimacy of the leading legal institution. Kentucky Law Journal, 79, 317-346.
33.
Spaeth, H. J. (2003). The original United States Supreme Court judicial database, 1953-2002 terms[Computer file]. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
34.
The statistics. (2001). Harvard Law Review, 115(1), 539-550.
35.
Turner, C. C., & Way, L. B. (2003). Classifying Supreme Court concurrences: The case of Justice Clarence Thomas. Journal of Political Science, 31, 139-171.
36.
Ulmer, S. S. (1970). Dissent behavior and the social background of Supreme Court justices. Journal of Politics, 32(3), 580-598.
37.
Wahlbeck, P. J., Spriggs, J. F., II, & Maltzman, F. (1999). The politics of dissents and concurrences on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Politics Quarterly, 27(3), 488-514.
38.
Walker, T. G., Epstein, L., & Dixon, W. J. (1988). On the mysterious demise of consensual norms in the United States Supreme Court. Journal of Politics, 50(2), 361-389.
