Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant: The Road (not) Taken: Selection of Legal Rules on the U.S. Supreme Court

Emory University, Atlanta GA

Investigators

Abstract

When the United States Supreme Court hears a case, it must determine not only who wins and loses, but what legal rule justifies that result. In fact, it is this rule - the language in the opinion that defines legal and illegal conduct - not the case outcome that constitutes the Court?s policy and influences the subsequent behavior of numerous other political actors. Unlike most work on legal rules, this project recognizes that justices normally select their chosen rule from a limited range of proffered options. Consequently, it is among the first to argue that the justices? choices over rules are driven, at least in part, by the nature of the rules themselves. In particular, the project explores three questions: How do the justices select among the legal rules presented to them? What role does the specificity and legal soundness of the potential rules play in their decision? How do these rule attributes interact with concerns about policy impact, opinion quality, and compliance in the lower courts? To answer these questions, the project generates original quantitative and qualitative data, including the first collection of the actual legal rules suggested to the justices by case participants. This dataset spans five decades, includes a range of legal issues, and is likely to be of interest to those who study legal rules, court opinions, and judicial decision-making more broadly. When combined with an examination of the private papers of several members of the Burger Court (1969-1985), the project should help illuminate the extent to which Supreme Court justices are motivated by policy outcome, policy compliance, and jurisprudential concerns, thus offering new insights into ongoing debates about the relative influence of law and politics on the U.S. Supreme Court.