To what extent do lower court judges follow Supreme Court plurality opinions? By examining treatments of Supreme Court cases from the 1976-1986 terms by the Circuit Courts of Appeals from 1976 to 2005, this article addresses the consequences of the Supreme Court's failure to reach a clear majority decision. I find evidence that lower courts are less likely to follow plurality opinions than majority opinions. These findings have implications regarding the authority of the Supreme Court, compliance, and institutional legitimacy.
Alchian, A.A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization . American Economic Review, 62, 777-795.
2.
Baum, L. (1978). Lower court response to Supreme Court decisions: Reconsidering a negative picture. Justice System Journal, 3, 208-219.
3.
Benesh, S.C. (2002). The U.S. Court of appeals and the law of confessions: Perspectives on the hierarchy of justice. New York: LFB.
4.
Benesh, S.C., & Reddick, M. (2002). Overruled: An event history analysis of lower court reaction to Supreme Court alteration of precedent. Journal of Politics, 64, 534-550.
5.
Berry, M.M., Kochan, D.J., & Parlow, M.J. (2007). Much Ado about pluralities: Pride and precedent amidst the cacophony of concurrences and re-percolation after Rapanos. Chapman University Law Research Paper No. 08-06. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1017992. Accessed on February 20, 1998.
6.
Brehm, J., & Gates, S. (1997). Working, shirking, and sabotage: Bureaucratic response to a democratic public. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
7.
Brenner, S., & Spaeth, H.J. (1995). Stare indecisis: The alteration of precedent on the Supreme Court, 1946-1992. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Brent, J.C. (2003). A principal-agent analysis of U.S. Courts of appeals responses to Boerne v. Flores. American Politics Research , 31, 557-570.
9.
Calvert, R.L., McCubbins, M.D., & Weingast, B.R. (1989). A theory of political control and agency discretion. American Journal of Political Science , 33, 588-611.
10.
Canon, B., & Johnson, C. (1999). Judicial policies: Implementation and impact (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
11.
Cox, A. (1980). The Supreme Court 1979 term foreward: Freedom of expression in the burger court. Harvard Law Review, 94, 1-73.
12.
Davis, J.F., & Reynolds, W.L. (1974). Juridical cripples: Plurality opinions in the Supreme Court. Duke Law Journal, 1974, 59-86.
13.
Easterbrook, F.H. (1982). Ways of criticizing the court. Harvard Law Review, 95, 802-832.
14.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14, 57-74.
15.
Epstein, L., Martin, A.D., Segal, J.A., & Westerland, C. (2007). The judicial common space. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 23, 303-325.
George, T.E., & Yoon, A.H. (2003). The federal court system: A principal-agent perspective . St. Louis University Law Journal, 47, 819-834.
18.
Gruhl, J. (1980). The Supreme Court's impact on the law of libel: Compliance by lower federal courts. Western Political Quarterly , 33, 503-519.
19.
Gruhl, J. (1981). Anticipatory compliance with Supreme Court rulings . Polity, 14, 294-313.
20.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
21.
Hall, M.G., & Brace, P. (1992). Toward an integrated model of judicial voting behavior. American Politics Quarterly, 20, 147-168.
22.
Hansford, T.G., & Spriggs, J.F., II. (2006). The politics of precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
Haynie, S.L. (1992). Leadership and consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court. Journal of Politics, 54, 1158-1169.
24.
Hochschild, A.S. (2000). The modern problem of Supreme Court plurality decision: Interpretation in historical perspective. Journal of Law and Policy, 4, 261-287.
25.
Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Circuit 1996).
26.
Howard, J. (1981). Courts of appeals in the federal judicial system . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
Johnson, C.A. (1979). Lower court reactions to Supreme Court decisions: A quantitative examination. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 792-804.
28.
Johnson, C.A. (1987). Law, politics, and judicial decision making: Lower federal court uses of Supreme Court decisions. Law and Society Review, 21, 325-339.
29.
Kimura, K. (1992). A Legitimacy model for the interpretation of plurality decisions. Cornell Law Review, 77, 1593-1625.
30.
Klein, D.E. (2002). Making law in the United States courts of appeals . New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Kurland, P.B., & Hutchinson, D.J. (1983). The business of the Supreme Court, O.T. 1982. University of Chicago Law Review, 50, 628-651.
32.
Long, J.S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
Maltzman, F., & Wahlbeck, P.J. (2004). A conditional model of opinion assignment on the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 551-563.
34.
Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977).
35.
McWhinney, E. (1953). Judicial concurrences and dissents: A comparative view of opinion-writing in final appellate tribunals. Canadian Bar Review, 31, 595-625.
36.
Mears, B. (2006). Consensus is Roberts' rule of order. Retrieved February 29, 2008, from http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/02/roberts.rules/index.html
37.
Miller, G.J., & Moe, T. (1986). The positive theory of hierarchies. In H. F. Weisberg (Ed.), Political science: The science of politics (pp. 167-198). New York: Agathon Press.
38.
Nilikant, V., & Rao, H. (1994). Agency theory and uncertainty in organizations: An evaluation. Organization Studies, 15, 649-672.
39.
Novak, L. (1980). The precedential value of Supreme Court plurality decisions. Columbia Law Review, 80, 756-781.
40.
O'Brien, D.M. (1999). Institutional norms and Supreme Court Opinions: On reconsidering the rise of individual opinions. In C. W. Brown & H. Gillman (Eds.), Supreme Court decision-making: New institutionalist approaches (pp. 91-113). Chicago : Chicago University Press.
41.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
42.
Smith v. University of Washington, 233 F.3d 1188 (9th Circuit 2000).
43.
Songer, D., & Haire, S. (1992). Integrating alternative approaches to the study of judicial voting: Obscenity cases in the U.S. courts of appeals. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 963-982.
44.
Songer, D.R., Segal, J.A., & Cameron, C.M. (1994). The hierarchy of justice: Testing a principal-agent model of Supreme Court-circuit court interactions. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 673-696.
45.
Songer, D.R., & Sheehan, R.S. (1990). Supreme Court impact on compliance and outcomes: Miranda and New York Times in the United States courts of appeals. Western Political Quarterly, 43, 297-316.
46.
Spaeth, H.J. (2006). The original United States Supreme Court database, 1953-2005 terms. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Department of Political Science.
47.
Spriggs, J.F., II. (2003). The attitudinal model: An explanation of case dispositions, not substantive policy outcomes. Law and Courts (Summer), 13, 23-26.
48.
Spriggs, J.F., II, & Hansford, T.G. (2000). Measuring legal change: The reliability and validity of Shepard's citations. Political Research Quarterly, 53, 327-341.
49.
Spriggs, J.F., II, & Hansford, T.G. (2002). The U.S. Supreme Court's incorporation and interpretation of precedent. Law and Society Review, 36, 139-157.
50.
Tarr, G.A. (1977). Judicial impact of the United States courts. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
51.
Thurmon, M. (1992). When the court divides: Reconsidering the precedential value of Supreme Court plurality decisions. Duke Law Journal , 42, 419-465.
52.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1988). Report to the Attorney General: A new look at plurality decisions . Office of Legal Policy.
53.
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, 361-389.
54.
Wasby, S. (1970). The impact of the United States Supreme Court: Some perspectives. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
