Doctoral Dissertation Research on Heterogeneity in Supreme Court Decision-Making

Ohio State University Research Foundation -Do Not Use, Columbus OH

Investigators

Abstract

This dissertation project develops a theory, using a psychological framework, specifying the mechanisms -- attitude strength and accountability -- that explain variation in the preference-behavior relationship for justices. Importantly, the theory defines a role for legal and strategic considerations. Case-level and contextual factors associated with each mechanism are hypothesized to explain variation in the impact of justices' preferences on their choices. To test the hypotheses, the project employs a hierarchical, or multilevel, modeling strategy and executes three analyses. The first analysis treats justices' civil liberties votes as a two-level hierarchy -- justices' choices nested within cases-to test whether the hypothesized case-level factors explain variation in the impact of preferences. Separate models are estimated for various natural courts or periods with little personnel change. The second and third analyses use a three-level structure -- justices' choices nested within cases nested within Court terms -- to determine how strategic (second analysis) and both legal and strategic factors (third analysis), in addition to the case-level factors used in the first analysis, explain variation in the preference-behavior relationship. The second analysis examines justices' votes on formally decided civil liberties cases for a longer time span (1952-2000). The third analysis examines justices' formally decided votes on free expression cases from 1973 to 1998.