Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

I develop a new measure of interpersonal influence on the U.S. Supreme Court. Following Altfeld and Spaeth, I define influence as “the act of producing an effect on the behavior of another without the use of coercion, authority, or political control.” I propose a measure of influence based on the number of times a justice cites her colleagues’ concurring and dissenting opinions. My analysis proceeds in two stages. First, I verify that this citation-based measure is a valid method of gauging influence. From there, I use this measure to help explain justice behavior in two pivotal stages of the Supreme Court’s decision-making process: oral arguments and opinion assignments. The results demonstrate that a citation-based measure of influence can help explain and predict behavior on the Supreme Court.

Keywords

Supreme Court influence citations oral argument opinion assignment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altfeld

M. F.

Spaeth

H. J.

(1984). Measuring influence on the U.S. Supreme Court. Jurimetrics, 24, 236-247.

Baum

(2006). Judges and their audiences: A perspective on judicial behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Black

R. C.

Johnson

T. R.

Wedeking

J. P.

(2012). Oral arguments and coalition formation on the U.S. Supreme Court: A deliberate dialogue. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Bollen

Lennox

(1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305-314.

Bonneau

C. W.

Hammond

T. H.

Maltzman

Wahlbeck

P. J.

(2007). Agenda control, the median justice, and the majority opinion on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 890-905.

Bryan

A. C.

Johnson

T. R.

Ringsmuth

E. M.

(2013). Voting fluidity and oral argument on the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 66, 429-440.

Clark

T. S.

Lauderdale

(2010). Locating Supreme Court opinions in doctrine space. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 871-890.

Clark

T. S.

Linzer

D. A.

(2015). Should I use fixed or random effects? Political Science Research and Methods, 3, 399-408.

Clouatre

(1996). Influence relationships: Justice O’Connor and the Supreme Court. Southeastern Political Review, 24, 655-673.

10.

Corley

P. C.

(2008). The Supreme Court and opinion content: The influence of parties’ briefs. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 468-478.

11.

Corley

P. C.

Collins

P. M.

Calvin

(2011). Lower court influence on U.S. Supreme Court opinion content. The Journal of Politics, 73, 31-44.

12.

Corley

P. C.

Collins

P. M.

Hamner

(2013). The influence of amicus curiae briefs on U.S. Supreme Court opinion content. Law & Society Review, 49, 917-944.

13.

Corley

P. C.

Sommer

Steigerwalt

Ward

(2010). Extreme dissensus: Explaining plurality decisions on the United States Supreme Court. Justice System Journal, 31, 180-200.

14.

Cross

F. B.

(2010). Determinants of citations to Supreme Court opinions (and the remarkable influence of Justice Scalia). Supreme Court Economic Review, 18, 177-202.

15.

Cross

F. B.

Spriggs

J. F.

(2010). Citations in the U.S. Supreme Court: An empirical study of their use and significance. University of Illinois Law Review, 2010, 489-576.

16.

Davis

(1991). The Supreme Court: Rehnquist’s or Reagan’s? Western Political Quarterly, 44, 87-99.

17.

Diamantopoulos

Reifler

Roth

K. P.

(2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1203-1218.

18.

Douthat

(2016, February 13). Antonin Scalia, conservative legal giant. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/opinion/antonin-scalia-conservative-legal-giant.html

19.

Epstein

Knight

(1998). The choices justices make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

20.

Epstein

Martin

A. D.

Segal

J. A.

Westerland

(2007). The judicial common space. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 23, 303-325.

21.

Epstein

Segal

J. A.

(2000). Measuring issue salience. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 66-83.

22.

Epstein

Segal

J. A.

Spaeth

H. J.

Walker

T. G.

(2012). The Supreme Court compendium: Data, decisions, and developments. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

23.

Feinerer

Hornik

Meyer

(2008). Text mining infrastructure in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(5), 1-54.

24.

Fowler

J. H.

Johnson

T. R.

Spriggs

J. F.

Jeon

Wahlbeck

P. J.

(2007). Network analysis and the law: Measuring the legal importance of Supreme Court precedents. Political Analysis, 15, 324-346.

25.

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 57–74 (2005).

26.

Hagle

T. M.

(1993). “Freshman effects” for Supreme Court justices. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 1142-1157.

27.

Hammond

T. H.

Bonneau

C. W.

Sheehan

R. S.

(2005). Strategic behavior and policy choice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

28.

Hansford

T. G.

Spriggs

J. F.

(2006). The politics of precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

29.

Hartup

W. W.

Stevens

(1997). Friendship and adaptation in the life course. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 355-370.

30.

Jarvis

C. B.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

P. M.

(2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199-218.

31.

Johnson

(2004). Oral arguments and decision making on the United States Supreme Court. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

32.

Johnson

T. R.

Black

R. C.

Wedeking

(2009). Pardon the interruption: An empirical analysis of Supreme Court justices’ behavior during oral arguments. Loyola Law Review, 55, 331-351.

33.

Johnson

T. R.

Ringsmuth

E. M.

(2013). Supreme Court oral arguments and institutional maintenance. American Politics Research, 41, 651-673

34.

Johnson

T. R.

Spriggs

J. F.

Wahlbeck

P. J.

(2005). Passing and strategic voting on the U.S. Supreme Court. Law and Society Review, 39, 349-377.

35.

Johnson

T. R.

Wahlbeck

P. J.

Spriggs

J. F.

(2006). The influence of oral argument on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 100, 99-113.

36.

King

(1988). Statistical models for political science event counts: Bias in conventional procedures and evidence for the exponential Poisson regression model. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 838-863.

37.

King

(1989). Variance specification in event count models: From restrictive assumptions to a generalized estimator. American Journal of Political Science, 33, 762-784.

38.

Klein

Morrisroe

(1999). The prestige and influence of individual judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The Journal of Legal Studies, 28, 371-391.

39.

Kosma

M. N.

(1998). Measuring the influence of Supreme Court justices. Journal of Legal Studies, 27, 333-372.

40.

Kromphardt

C. D.

(2014). Fielding an excellent team: Law clerk selection and chamber structure at the U.S. Supreme Court. Marquette Law Review, 98, 289-311.

41.

Kromphardt

C. D.

(2015). U.S. Supreme Court law clerks as information sources. Journal of Law and Courts, 3, 277-304.

42.

Landes

W. M.

Lessig

Solimine

M. E.

(1998). Judicial influence: A citation analysis of federal courts of appeals judges. The Journal of Legal Studies, 27, 271-332.

43.

Lauderdale

B. E.

Clark

T. S.

(2012). The Supreme Court’s many median justices. American Political Science Review, 106, 847-866.

44.

Lauderdale

B. E.

Clark

T. S.

(2014). Scaling politically meaningful dimensions using texts and votes. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 754-771.

45.

Lupia

McCubbins

M. D.

(1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

46.

Maltzman

Spriggs

J. F.

Wahlbeck

P. J.

(2000). Crafting law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

47.

Martin

A. D.

Quinn

K. M.

(2002). Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis, 10, 134-153.

48.

McGuire

K. T.

Vanberg

Yanus

A. B.

(2007, January). Targeting the median justice: A content analysis of legal arguments and judicial opinions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA.

49.

McPherson

Smith-Lovin

Cook

J. M.

(2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.

50.

Meinke

S. R.

Scott

K. M.

(2007). Collegial influence and judicial voting change: The effect of membership change on U.S. Supreme Court justices. Law & Society Review, 41, 909-938.

51.

Morris

(2016, February 14). How Scalia became the most influential conservative jurist since the New Deal. FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved from https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-scalia-became-the-most-influential-conservative-jurist-since-the-new-deal/

52.

Murphy

W. F.

(1964). Elements of judicial strategy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

53.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2071 (2015).

54.

Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990).

55.

Peppers

T. C.

Zorn

(2008). Law clerk influence on Supreme Court decision making: An empirical assessment. DePaul Law Review, 58, 51-77.

56.

Richards

Kritzer

(2002). Jurisprudential regimes in Supreme Court decision making. American Political Science Review, 96, 305-320.

57.

Savage

D. G.

(2016, February 20). Scalia’s uncompromising style at times limited his impact on the Supreme Court. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scalia-legacy-20160220-story.html

58.

Schwartz

E. P.

(1992). Policy, precedent, and power: A positive theory of Supreme Court decision-making. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 8, 219-252.

59.

Segal

J. A.

Spaeth

H. J.

(2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

60.

Sommer

(2014). Supreme Court agenda setting: Strategic behavior during case selection. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

61.

Spaeth

H. J.

Epstein

Martin

A. D.

Segal

J. A.

Ruger

Benesh

S. C.

(2014). Supreme Court Database (Version 2014, Release 01). Available from http://supremecourtdatabase.org

62.

Streiner

D. L.

(2003). Being inconsistent about consistency: When coefficient alpha does and doesn’t matter. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 217-222.

63.

Totenberg

(2015, July 10). Ginsburg: Liberal justices make a point to speak with one voice. National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/10/421811833/ginsburg-liberal-justices-make-a-point-to-speak-with-one-voice

64.

Wahlbeck

P. J.

(2006). Strategy and constraints on Supreme Court opinion assignment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154, 1729-1755.

65.

Wahlbeck

P. J.

Spriggs

J. F.

Maltzman

(1999). The politics of dissents and concurrences on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Politics Quarterly, 27, 488-514.

66.

Wahlbeck

P. J.

Spriggs

J. F.

Sigelman

(2002). Ghostwriters on the Court? A stylistic analysis of U.S. Supreme Court opinions. American Politics Research, 30, 166-192.

67.

Wedeking

(2010). Supreme Court litigants and strategic framing. Political Research Quarterly, 5, 617-631.

68.

Weiser

(2015, May 19). Faced with legal puzzles, judges often turn to fellow jurists. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/nyregion/faced-with-legal-puzzles-judges-often-turn-to-fellow-jurists.html?_r=0

69.

Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 516 (1994).

70.

Williams

L. A.

(2007). Measuring internal influence on the Rehnquist Court: An analysis of non-majority opinion joining behavior. Ohio State Law Journal, 68, 679-732.

Using Citations to Measure Influence on the Supreme Court

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References