Arguably the most influential power the U.S. Supreme Court has is the power to choose which cases to decide. This power allows the nation’s only unelected branch of government to choose either to weigh in on key political controversies or avoid them completely. Here, I take one of the first case-level looks at the role of public opinion in the Court’s agenda-setting process. I argue justices vote to hear cases when they are likely to agree with public opinion on the outcome and eschew cases when they are out of step with the American people. However, the effect of public opinion depends on the political environment, especially on the level of public support the Court enjoys, the salience of the issue, and the case’s legal importance.
BartelsB. L. (2009). The constraining capacity of legal doctrine on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 103, 474-495.
4.
BaumL. (2006). Judges and their audiences: A perspective on judicial behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. (2010). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
6.
BlackR. C.BoydC. L. (2012). U.S. Supreme Court agenda setting and the role of litigant status. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 28, 286-312.
7.
BlackR. C.BoydC. L. (2013). Selecting the select few: The discuss list and the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda-setting process. Social Science Quarterly, 94, 1124-1144.
8.
BlackR. C.OwensR. J. (2009). Agenda setting in the Supreme Court: The collision of policy and jurisprudence. The Journal of Politics, 71, 1062-1075.
BrennerS.WhitmeyerJ. M. (2009). Strategy on the United States Supreme Court. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BryanA. C.KromphardtC. D. (2016). Public opinion, public support, and counter-attitudinal voting on the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice System Journal, 37, 298-317.
12.
CaldeiraG. A. (1981). The United States Supreme Court and criminal cases, 1935–1976: Alternative models of agenda building. British Journal of Political Science, 11, 449-470.
13.
CaldeiraG. A.WrightJ. R. (1988). Organized interests and agenda setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 82, 1109-1127.
DahlR. A.1957. Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy Maker. Journal of Public Law, 6, 279–295.
20.
de TocquevilleA. (1839). Democracy in America (3rd ed., Vol. 1). New York, NY: George Adlard. DiSanto v. Pennsylvania, 273 U.S. 34 (1927).
21.
DurrR. H.MartinA. D.WolbrechtC. (2000). Ideological divergence and public support for the Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 768-776.
22.
EpsteinL.KnightJ. (1998). The choices justices make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
23.
EpsteinL.MartinA. D. (2010). Does public opinion influence the Supreme Court? Possibly yes (but we’re not sure why). University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 13, 263-281.
24.
EpsteinL.MartinA. D.SegalJ. A.WesterlandC. (2007). The judicial common space. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 23, 303-325.
25.
EpsteinL.SegalJ. A.VictorJ. N. (2002). Dynamic agenda setting on the U.S. Supreme Court: An empirical assessment. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 39, 395-433.
26.
FlemmingR. B.BohteJ.WoodB. D. (1997). One voice among many: The Supreme Court’s influence on attentiveness to issues in the United States, 1947-1992. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 1224-1250.
27.
GibsonJ. L.CaldeiraG. A. (1992). The etiology of public support for the Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 635-664.
28.
GibsonJ. L.CaldeiraG. A. (2009a). Confirmation politics and the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court: Institutional loyalty, positivity bias, and the alito nomination. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 139-155.
29.
GibsonJ. L.CaldeiraG. A. (2009b). Knowing the Supreme Court? A reconsideration of public ignorance of the high court. The Journal of Politics, 71, 429-441.
30.
GilesM. W.BlackstoneB.ViningR. L. (2008). The Supreme Court in American democracy: Unraveling the linkages between public opinion and judicial decision making. The Journal of Politics, 70, 293-306.
31.
HallM. E. K. (2014). The semiconstrained court: Public opinion, the separation of powers, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s fear of nonimplementation. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 352-366.
32.
HallM. E. K. (2018). What justices want: Goals and personality on the U.S. Supreme Court. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
HammondT. H.BonneauC. W.SheehanR. S. (2005). Strategic behavior and policy choice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
34.
HarveyA. L.FriedmanB. (2009). Ducking trouble: Congressionally induced selection bias in the Supreme Court’s agenda. The Journal of Politics, 71, 574-592.
35.
HoekstraV. J. (2000). The Supreme Court and local public opinion. American Political Science Review, 94, 89-100.
36.
JohnsonT. R.GoldmanJ. (2009). A good quarrel: America’s top legal reporters share stories from inside the Supreme Court. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
37.
JohnsonT. R.SpriggsI. I.WahlbeckP. J. (2005). Passing and strategic voting on the U.S. Supreme Court. Law & Society Review, 39, 349-377.
38.
KastellecJ. P.LaxJ. R. (2008). Case selection and the study of judicial politics. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 5, 407-446.
39.
KingdonJ. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
40.
MartinA. D.QuinnK. M. (2002). Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis, 10, 134-153.
41.
McGuireK. T.StimsonJ. A. (2004). The least dangerous branch revisited: New evidence on Supreme Court responsiveness to public preferences. The Journal of Politics, 66, 1018-1035.
42.
MishlerW.SheehanR. S. (1993). The Supreme Court as a countermajoritarian institution? The impact of public opinion on Supreme Court decisions. American Political Science Review, 87, 87-101.
43.
MurphyW. F. (1964). Elements of judicial strategy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
44.
NorpothH.SegalJ. A. (1994). Popular influence on Supreme Court decisions. American Political Science Review, 88, 711-724.
45.
OwensR. J. (2010). The separation of powers and Supreme Court agenda setting. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 412-427.
46.
PacelleR. (1991). The transformation of the Supreme Court’s agenda: From the new deal to the Reagan administration. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
47.
PerryH.Jr. (1991). Deciding to decide: Agenda setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48.
RiceD. R. (2014). The impact of Supreme Court activity on the judicial agenda: Calling to action or settling the law. Law & Society Review, 48, 63-90.
49.
RosenbergG. N. (2008). The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?Second Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50.
SchauerF. (2005). The Supreme Court 2005 Term. Foreword: The Supreme Court’s Agenda – And the Nation’s. Harvard Law Review, 120, 4–64.
51.
SegalJ. A.SpaethH. J. (1993). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
52.
SegalJ. A.SpaethH. J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
53.
StimsonJ. A. (1999). Public opinion in America: Moods, cycles, and swings (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Westview Press.
54.
UlmerS. S. (1978). Selecting cases for Supreme Court review: An underdog model. American Political Science Review, 72, 902-910.
55.
YatesJ.WhitfordA. B.GillespieW. (2005). Agenda setting, issue priorities and organizational maintenance: The U.S. Supreme Court, 1955 to 1994. British Journal of Political Science, 35, 369-381.
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.
