Attempts to demonstrate that law systematically influences the behavior of the justices of the Supreme Court have traditionally foundered on the inability to provide systematic tests for such influence. At the same time, attitudinalists have traditionally asserted that the influence of law and policy preferences must be mutually exclusive, which is an unreasonably high standard. In this article, I develop a model of what federalism might look like to a Supreme Court justice. In doing so, I emphasize the difference between constitutional and political federalism but in the context of the judicial role in federalism. The model is then tested by looking at the pro-state bloc in the late Rehnquist Court, finding that four of the five justices can be considered federalists. The evidence presented here can be taken as a test of the influence of law beyond the influence of ideology of Supreme Court justices.
Bailey, M.A., Kamoie, B., & Maltzman, F. (2005). Signals from the tenth justice: The political role of the solicitor general in Supreme Court decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 72-85.
2.
Bednar, J., & Eskridge, W.N. , Jr. (1995). Steadying the court's “unsteady path”: A theory of judicial enforcement of federalism. Southern California Law Review, 1448, 1447-1491.
3.
Brace, P., Hall, M.G., & Langer, L. (2001). Placing state supreme courts in state politics . State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 1, 81-108.
4.
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
5.
Calabresi, S.G. (2001). Federalism and the RehnquistCourt: A normative defense. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 574, 24-36.
6.
Clayton, C.W., & McGuire, J. (2001). State litigation strategies and policymaking in the U.S. Supreme Court. Journal of Law andPublic Policy, 11, 17-34.
7.
Colker, R., & Scott, K.M. (2006). Rehnquist and federalism: An empirical perspective . In Craig Bradley (Ed.), The Rehnquist legacy (pp. 279-298). New York: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Collins, P.M., Jr. (in press). Towards an integrated model of the Supreme Court's federalism decision making. Publius: The Journal of Federalism.
9.
Conlan, T.J., & Dudley, R.L. (2005). Janus-faced federalism: State sovereignty and federal preemption in the Rehnquist Court. PS: Political Science and Politics, 38, 363-366.
10.
Cross, F.B., & Tiller, E.H. (2000). The three faces of federalism: An empirical assessment of Supreme Court federalism jurisprudence. Southern California Law Review, 73, 741-771.
11.
Dailey, B. (2001). The five faces of federalism: A state-power quintet without a theory. Ohio State Law Journal, 62, 1243-1288.
12.
Davis, S. (1992). Rehnquist and state courts: Federalism revisited . Western Political Quarterly, 45, 773-782.
13.
Dinan, J.J. (1999). The Rehnquist Court's federalism decisions in perspective. Journal of Law and Politics, 15, 127-194.
14.
Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (1998). The choices justices make. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
15.
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985).
16.
Gardbaum, S. (1996). Rethinking constitutional federalism. Texas Law Review, 74, 795-838.
17.
George, T.E., & Epstein, L. (1992). On the nature of Supreme Court decision making . American Political Science Review, 86, 323-337.
18.
Gillman, H. (2001). What's law got to do with it? Judicial behavioralists test the “legal model” of judicial decision making. Law and Social Inquiry, 26, 465-504.
19.
Howard, R.M., & Segal, J.A. (2002). An original look at originalism. Law and Society Review, 36, 113-134.
20.
Howard, R.M., & Segal, J.A. (2004). A preference for deference? The Supreme Court and judicial review. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 131-143.
21.
Keck, T.M. (2004). The most activist Supreme Court in history: The road to modern judicial conservatism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Kritzer, H.M., & Richards, M.J. (2003). Jurisprudential regimes and Supreme Court decision making: The Lemon regime and Establishment Clause cases. Law and Society Review, 37, 827-840.
23.
Kritzer, H.M., & Richards, M.J. (2005). The influence of law in the Supreme Court's search-and-seizure jurisprudence. American Politics Research, 33, 33-55.
24.
Lindquist, S.A., & Spill Solberg, R. (2007). Judicial review by the Burger and Rehnquist courts: Explaining justices' responses to constitutional challenges. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 71-90.
25.
Martin, A.D., Quinn, K.M., & Epstein, L. (2005). The median justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. North Carolina Law Review, 83, 1275-1321.
26.
Merrill, T.W. (2003). The making of the second RehnquistCourt: A preliminary analysis. Saint Louis University Law Journal, 47, 569-658.
27.
Murphy, W.F. (1964). Elements of judicial strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).
28.
Nicholson-Crotty, S. (2006, September). State merit amicus participation and federalism outcomes in the U.S. Supreme Court. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association , Philadelphia.
29.
Phelps, G.A., & Gates, J.B. (1991). The myth of jurisprudence: Interpretive theory in the constitutional opinions of Justices Rehnquist and Brennan. Santa Clara Law Review, 31, 567-596.
30.
Pickerill, J.M., & Clayton, C.W. (2004). The Rehnquist Court and the political dynamics of federalism. Perspectives on Politics, 2, 233-248.
31.
Richards, M.J., & Kritzer, H.M. (2002). Jurisprudential regimes in Supreme Court decision making. American Political Science Review, 96, 305-320.
32.
Rogers, J.R. (2001). Information and judicial review: A signaling game of legislative-judicial interaction. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 84-99.
33.
Scott, K.M. (2006). Reconsidering the impact of jurisprudential regimes . Social Science Quarterly, 87, 380-394.
34.
Segal, J.A. (1984). Predicting Supreme Court cases probabilistically: The search and seizure cases, 1962-1981. American Political Science Review, 78, 891-900.
35.
Segal, J.A. (1985). Measuring change on the SupremeCourt: Examining alternative models. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 461-479.
36.
Segal, J.A., & Spaeth, H.J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited . New York: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Spaeth, H.J. (1964). The judicial restraint of Mr. Justice Frankfurter: Myth or reality. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 8, 22-38.
38.
Spaeth, H.J. (2004). The United States Supreme Court database, 1953-2002 terms. Retrieved from http://www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/sctdata.htm
39.
Spaeth, H.J., & Segal, J.A. (1999). Majority rule or minority will: Adherence to precedent on the U.S. SupremeCourt. New York : Cambridge University Press.
40.
Spill Solberg, R., & Lindquist, S.A. (2006). Activism, ideology, and federalism: Judicial behavior in constitutional challenges before the Rehnquist Court, 1986-2000. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 3, 237-261.
41.
Swinford, B., & Waltenburg, E.N. (1998a). The consistency of the U.S. Supreme Court's pro-state bloc. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 28, 25-43.
42.
Swinford, B., & Waltenburg, E.N. (1998b). The Supreme Court and the states: Do Lopez and Printz represent a broader state movement?Journal of Law and Politics, 14, 319-360.
43.
Thayer, J.B. (1893). The origin and scope of the American doctrine of constitutional law. Harvard Law Review, 7, 129-156.
44.
Waltenburg, E.N., & Swinford, B. (1999). The Supreme Court as a policy arena: The strategies and tactics of state attorneys general. Policy Studies Journal , 27, 242-259.
45.
Wechsler, H. (1954). Political safeguards of federalism: The role of the states in the composition and selection of the national government. Columbia Law Review, 54, 543-560.
46.
Whittington, K.E. (2001). Taking what they give us: Explaining the Court's federalism offensive. Duke Law Journal, 51, 477-520.
47.
Yoo, J.C. (1997). The judicial safeguards of federalism. Southern California Law Review, 70, 1311-1405.
48.
Young, E.A. (2004). The Rehnquist Court's two federalisms. Texas Law Review, 83, 1-166.
