Northern Illinois University

Department of Political Science

 POLS 510 Seminar: Judicial Politics

Fall 2006 T 3:30-6:10 

Founder's Library Room 352

Instructor: Artemus Ward

Office: 410 Zulauf Hall

Office Phone: 815-753-7041

E-mail: aeward@niu.edu

Office Hours: T TH 11:00-12:15 & by appointment.

 

This seminar explores the contributions that social science, and specifically the discipline of political science, has made to the study of law and courts. We will take an historical approach in examining the various schools of thought that have dominated the literature. Have these approaches been successful in furthering our understanding of judicial behavior and the role of law in society? Do contemporary approaches provide sufficient explanations or is something missing? To this end, students are required to vigorously participate in weekly seminars and write four separate thought papers about the issues discussed. Students with an interest in doing research in the Public Law field may substitute a literature review or other project for the thought papers.

You are required to do the assigned reading and come to class prepared to discuss the material. Because this course is a seminar, I will endeavor to speak as little as possible. You should be prepared to discuss the assigned works in depth and respond to the remarks of your colleagues. That said, there is such a thing as too much participation. Be respectful of the other seminar participants and give others a chance to join the conversation. Class participation is crucial in graduate courses and will account for a substantial part of your course grade. If you miss classes, generally do not come prepared and/or do not regularly participate, you will fail this part of the course.

 


Grading

 

Written Work: 70%

Seminar Participation: 30%

 

There are two assignment options:

 

1)      You are required to write 4 short 4-5 page thought papers on issues relating to course topics throughout the semester. You should choose your 4 topics from those listed in the syllabus.  Your papers should be very specific about the course readings. Careful and detailed reading and writing is essential at the graduate level. As you may know, unlike undergraduate work, graduate level writing must go beyond merely summarizing the readings. Everything you write at the graduate level should include some kind of original contribution—argument, analysis, approach, etc.

 

OR

 

2)       You may write one final course paper (15-20 pages minimum) on a topic of your choice relating to public law, broadly defined. This can also be a literature review. If you choose this option, discuss your plans with me as early in the semester as possible. 

 


 

Required Books

 

Hammond, Thomas H., Chris W. Bonneau, and Reginald S. Sheehan, Strategic Behavior and Policy Choice on the U.S. Supreme Court (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005).

 

Hansford, Thomas G. and James F. Spriggs II, The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court (Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press, 2006).

 

Hirschl, Ran, Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004).

 

Maveety, Nancy, Pioneers of Judicial Behavior (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2001).

 

Russell, Peter H., Recognizing Aboriginal Title: The Mabo Case and Indigenous Resistance to English-Settler Colonialism (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 2005).

 


 

Recommended Books

 

Baum, Lawrence, Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006).

 

Clayton, Cornell W. and Howard Gillman, eds., Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999).

 

Epp, Charles R., The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998).

 

Gillman, Howard & Cornell Clayton, eds., The Supreme Court in American Politics (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1999).

 

Kahn, Ronald and Ken I. Kersch, eds., The Supreme Court and American Political Development (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2006).

 

Rosenberg, Gerald N., The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1993).

 


Course Calendar

 

 

Introduction

 

Week 1—Aug 29. Introduction to Studying Law & Courts

 


 

The Lasting Legacy of Legal Realism

 

Week 2—Sept 5. From Classical Legal Thought to Sociological Jurisprudence to Legal Realism

 

Required:

·         Levi, Edward H., “The Nature of Judicial Reasoning,” University of Chicago Law Review 32 (1965): 395-409.

·         Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (Dall.) 386 (1798), Chase and Iredell only.

·         Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137 (1803).

·         Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).

·         Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908).

·         Brandeis Brief (1907). Do NOT read the entire brief. Just get a sense of it.

·         Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923). Sutherland, Taft, and Holmes only.

·         West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937).

·         Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 (1955).

·         Leiter, Brian R., “American Legal Realism,” 2002. U of Texas Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 42 Available at SSRN.

 

Recommended:

o        The Constitution of the United States of America (1787).

o        Madison, James, Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787.

o        Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers—particularly #78.

o        Pound, Roscoe, “Mechanical Jurisprudence,” Columbia Law Review 8 (1908): 605.

o        Llewellyn, Karl, The Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study (Dobbs Ferry, New York: Oceana Publications, 1930).

o        Levi, Edward H., An Introduction to Legal Reasoning (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1948).

o        Llewellyn, Karl, Jurisprudence: Realism in Theory and Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).

 


 

Week 3—Sep 12. Trial Courts

 

Required:

·         Frank, Jerome, Courts On Trial: Myth and Reality in American Justice. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1936).  Ch.1 "The Needless Mystery of Court-House Government," Ch.2 "Fights and Rights," Ch.3 "Facts Are Guesses," Ch.10 "Are Judges Human?" Ch.11 "Psychological Approaches." On e-reserve. 

·         Church, Thomas W., “Plea Bargaining and Local Legal Culture,” in Lee Epstein, ed., Contemplating Courts (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1995) 132-54. On e-reserve. 

·         Scheppele, Kim Lane, “Imagined Pasts: Sexualized Violence and the Revision of Truth,” in Lee Epstein, ed., Contemplating Courts (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1995) 155-69. On e-reserve. 

·         Mather, Lynn, “The Fired Football Coach (or, How Trial Courts Make Policy),” in Lee Epstein, ed., Contemplating Courts (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1995) 170-202. On e-reserve. 

 

Recommended:

o        Scheingold, Stuart A., The Politics of Street Crime: Criminal Process and Cultural Obsession (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1991).

o        Munger, Frank, “Trial Courts and Social Change: The Evolution of a Field of Study,” Law & Society Review 24 (1990): 217.

 

Paper Topic 1: What is the relationship between legal realism and legal reasoning?  Do legal realists pose a threat to the legal reasoning model?

 

Paper Topic 2: What is the relationship between trial courts and policymaking? Can and should trial court judges make policy?

 


 

Week 4—Sep 19. Interest Groups and the Courts

 

Required:

·         Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

·         Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938).

·         Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).

·         Brown v. Board of Education, I,  347 U.S. 483 (1954).

·         Brown v. Board of Education, II, 349 U.S. 294 (1955).

·         Wasby, Stephen L., Race Relations Litigation in an Age of Complexity (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 1995). Required, on e-reserve: Ch. 7, "The 'Planned' in Planned Litigation," pp. 141-169; Ch. 11, "Litigation Dynamics," pp. 236-251; and Ch. 15, "The Complexity of Civil Rights Litigation: Some Concluding Thoughts," pp. 330-337. Suggested: other chapters in the book, which is on physical reserve at the library.

·         Tushnet, Mark V., The NAACP’s Legal Strategy Against Segregated Education: 1925-1950 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2006). Required, on e-reserve: Chapter 8, "Conclusions: Some Lessons from the Campaign," pp. 138-166. Suggested: other chapters in the book, which is on physical reserve at the library.

·         Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright, “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court," American Political Science Review 82 (1988): 1109-28.

 

Recommended:

o        Pacelle, Richard L., Jr., The Transformation of the Supreme Court's Agenda: From the New Deal to the Reagan Administration. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991).

o        McGuire, Kevin T., “Amici Curiae and Strategies for Gaining Access to the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 47 (1994): 821-37.

 


 

Week 5—Sep 26. Appellate Courts

 

Guest: Stephen L. Wasby, Professor Emeritus, SUNY Albany and current editor of Justice System Journal. In addition to leading the seminar, Professor Wasby will also be giving a talk, "Of Albatrosses, Toddlers, and Saints: Tales from an Editor," on publishing in journals from 12:30pm-1:30pm in Watson 110.

 

Required:

·         Howard, J. Woodford, Courts of Appeals in the Federal System (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981) Required, on e-reserve: Ch. 2-3; Suggested, Ch. 4-8 of the book, which is on physical reserve at the library.

·         Cohen, Jonathan Matthew, Inside Appellate Courts: The Impact of Court Organization on Judicial Decision Making in the United States Courts of Appeals ( Ann Arbor , MI : University of Michigan Press, 2002). Required, on e-reserve: Ch. 2, "The Organizational Character of the U.S. Courts of Appeals," pp. 21-38, and Chapter 5, "Structure and Interaction among Judicial Chambers," pp. 125-169.

·         Klein, David E., Making Law in the United States Courts of Appeals (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Electronic book; On-line access restricted to NIU Library users. Required: Ch. 5, “Influences on Circuit Judges’ Responses: Interview Evidence,” pp. 87-106. Suggested: Ch. 6, “Anticipating the Supreme Court,” pp. 107-130.

 

Recommended:

·         Goldman, Sheldon, “Voting Behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals.” American Political Science Review 60 (1966): 374-83.

·         Songer, Donald, R., Reginald S. Sheehan, and Susan B. Haire, Continuity and Change on the United States Courts of Appeals (Ann Arbor, MI: University if Michigan Press, 2000).

·         Wasby, Stephen L., “The Supreme Court and Court and Courts of Appeals en bancs,” McGeorge Law Review 33 (2001): 17-73.

·         Wasby, Stephen L., “Intercircuit Conflicts in the Courts of Appeals,” Montana Law Review 63 (2002): 119-96.

·         Hettinger, Virginia A., Stefanie A. Lindquist, and Wendy L. Martinek, Judging on a Collegial Court: Influences on Federal Appellate Decision Making (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2006).

 


 

Week 6—Oct 3. Modern Legal Realists: The Critical Legal Studies Movement

 

Required:

·         Legal Information Institute, “Critical Legal Studies: An Overview.”

·         Tushnet, Mark, “Critical Legal Studies: A Political History,” The Yale Law Journal 100 (1991): 1515-44.

·         Kennedy, Duncan, “Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy,” Journal of Legal Education 32 (1982): 591-615.

·         Legal Information Institute, “Feminist Jurisprudence: An Overview.”

·         MacKinnon, Catharine A., “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: Toward Feminist Jurisprudence,” Signs 8 (1983): 635-58.

·         PBS’s Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg, “A Conversation with Catharine MacKinnon,” July 7, 1995.

 

Recommended:

o        Unger, Roberto Mangabeira, The Critical Legal Studies Movement (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986).

o        Fiss, Owen M., “The Death of Law?” Cornell Law Review 72 (1986): 1.

o        Rubin, Alvin B., “Does Law Matter? A Judge’s Response to the Critical Legal Studies Movement,” Journal of Legal Education 37 (1987): 307.

o        MacKinnon, Catherine, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989).

o        Balkin, Jack M. “Deconstruction’s Legal Career,” Cardozo Law Review 27 (1998): 719-40.       

 


 

Week 7—Oct 10. Contemporary Post-Realist Scholarship: The Liberal Principlist Attempt to Rescue Judicial Review from Realism and Its Relationship to Political Science

 

Required: 

·         Dworkin, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977), Ch. 1 "Jurisprudence," Ch. 4 "Hard Cases" and Ch. 13 "Can Rights be Controversial?" On e-reserve.

·         Ackerman, Bruce, We The People: Vol. 2, Transformations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), Ch. 1 "Higher Lawmaking" and Ch. 13 "Reclaiming the Constitution." On e-reserve.

·         Howard, Robert M., and Jeffrey A. Segal, “A Preference for Deference? The Supreme Court and Judicial Review,” Political Research Quarterly 57 (2004): 131-43.

·         Keck, Thomas M., The Most Activist Supreme Court in History: The Road to Modern Judicial Conservatism (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2004). Introduction, Ch. 6, and the Conclusion. On e-reserve.

 

Recommended:

o        Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

o        Bickel, Alexander M., “The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision,” Harvard Law Review 69 (1955): 1-65.

o        Wechsler, Herbert, “Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law,” Harvard Law Review 73 (1959): 1-35.

o        Bickel, Alexander M., The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1962, 1986).

o        Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949) and Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

o        Colgrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946) and Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).

o        Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942) and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

o        Ely, John Hart, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980).

o        Brennan, William J., “The Constitution of the United States: Contemporary Ratification,” South Texas Law Review 27 (1986): 433-45.

o        Ackerman, Bruce, We the People: Vol. 1, Foundations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991).

o        Dworkin, Ronald, Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996).

o        Sunstein, Cass R., One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).

 

Paper Topic 3: Discuss the legacy of legal realism. Compare and contrast the CLS movement to liberal principlist scholars such as Dworkin and Ackerman. Which argument do you find more attractive?  Why?

 

Paper Topic 4: What is the relationship between activism and principlism? Discuss how liberal principlist arguments like those from legal theorists Dworkin and Ackerman relate to the data provided by political scientists such as Howard, Segal, and Keck.

 


 

The Contribution of Political Science

 

Week 8—Oct 17. Behavioralism: Attitudinalists

 

 Required:

·         Pritchett, C. Herman, The Roosevelt Court: A Study in Judicial Politics and Values, 1937-1947 (New York: Macmillan, 1948) Ch.2 "Divided It Stands." On e-reserve.

·         Baum, Lawrence, “C. Herman Pritchett: Innovator with an Ambiguous Legacy,” Ch. 2 in Maveety, The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior.

·         Schubert, Glendon, The Judicial Mind: The Attitudes and Ideologies of Supreme Court Justices, 1946-1963 (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1965) Ch. 2. On e-reserve.

·         Segal, Jeffrey A., “Glendon Schubert: The Judicial Mind,” Ch. 3 in Maveety, The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior.

·         Segal, Jeffrey A. and Harold J. Spaeth, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993) Ch.6 "The Decision on the Merits" and Ch.10 "Conclusion: Responses to Criticisms of the Attitudinal Model." On e-reserve.

·         Benesh, Sarah C., “Harold J. Spaeth: The Supreme Court Computer,” Ch. 5 in Maveety, The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior.

·         Symposium on the Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model, Susan E. Lawrence; Lawrence
Baum, Jack Knight, Gerald N. Rosenberg, Rogers M. Smith, and Jeffrey A. Segal and Harold J. Spaeth, Law & Courts 4 (1994): 3-11.

 

Recommended:

o        Swisher, Carl, “Research in Public Law: Report on the Panel on Public Law,” American Political Science Review 40 (1946): 552.

o        Schubert, Glendon, Quantitative Analysis of Judicial Behavior (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1959).

o        Schubert, Glendon, “Behavioral Research in Public Law,” American Political Science Review 57 (1963): 433.

o        Mendelson, Wallace, “The Neo-Behavioral Approach to the Judicial Process: A Critique,” American Political Science Review 57 (1963): 593.

o        Pritchett, C. Herman, Letter to the Editor, American Political Science Review 57 (1963): 948.

o        Somit, Albert, and Joseph Tanenhaus, “Trends in American Political Science: Some Analytical Notes,” American Political Science Review 57 (1963): 933, 941.

o        Pritchett, C. Herman, “Public Law and Judicial Behavior,” Journal of Politics 30 (1968): 480, 487.

o        Schubert, Glendon, The Judicial Mind Revisited: A Psychometric Analysis of Supreme Court Ideology (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1974).

o        Segal, Jeffrey A. and Albert D. Cover, “Ideological Values and Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices,” American Political Science Review 83 (1989): 557-65.

o       Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth,The Influence of Stare Decisis on the Votes of United States Supreme Court Justices,” American Journal of Political Science 40 (1996): 971-1003. Winner of the 1994 American Judicature Society Award for best American Political Science Association paper on Law and Courts.

o        Brisbin, Richard A., Jr., “Slaying the Dragon: Segal, Spaeth and the Function of Law in Supreme Court Decision Making,” American Journal of Political Science 40 (1996): 1004-17.

o        Knight, Jack, and Lee Epstein, “The Norm of Stare Decisis,” American Journal of Political Science 40 (1996): 1018-35.

o        Brenner, Saul, and Marc Stier,Retesting Segal and Spaeth’s Stare Decisis Model,” American Journal of Political Science 40 (1996): 1036-48.

o        Songer, Donald R., and Stefanie A. Lindquist,Not the Whole Story: The Impact of Justices’ Values on Supreme Court Decision Making,” American Journal of Political Science 40 (1996): 1049-63.

o       Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth,Norms, Dragons, and Stare Decisis: A Response,” American Journal of Political Science 40 (1996): 1064-82.

o        Spaeth, Harold J., and Jeffrey A. Segal, Majority Rule or Minority Will: Adherence to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

o        Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Ch. 1-2 and 7-8.

o        Martin, Andrew D., and Kevin M. Quinn, “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999,” Political Analysis 10 (2002): 134-53. Awarded the 2001 Harold Gosnell Prize by the Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association.

o        Martin, Andrew D., Kevin M. Quinn, Theodore W. Ruger, and Pauline T. Kim, “Competing Approaches to Predicting Supreme Court Decisionmaking,” Perspectives on Politics 2 (2004): 761-7.

o        Martin, Andrew D., Kevin M. Quinn, and Lee Epstein, “The Median Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court,” North Carolina Law Review 83 (2005): 1275-1320.

o        McGuire, Kevin T. and Georg Vanberg,Mapping the Policies of the U.S. Supreme Court: Data, Opinions, and Constitutional Law,” Paper prepared for delivery at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, Sep. 1-5, 2005. Winner of the 2006 American Judicature Society Award for the best paper on law and courts presented at the previous year's annual APSA meeting.

o        Randazzo, Kirk A., The University of Kentucky’s Ulmer Project,” 16 Law and Courts (1, 2006): 13-15.

o        Benesh, Sara C.,Becoming an Intelligent User of the Spaeth Supreme Court Databases,” 16 Law and Courts (1, 2006): 15-21.

o        Collins, Paul M., Jr.,Transforming the Original U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Database: An Alternative Approach for Use with Stata,” 16 Law and Courts (1, 2006): 22-24.

o        Epstein, Lee, Andrew D. Martin, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Chad Westerland, “The Judicial Common Space,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization (forthcoming).

 


 

Week 9—Oct 24. From Behavioralism to New Institutionalism: The Strategic Approach

 

Required:

·         Murphy, Walter F., Elements of Judicial Strategy (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1966) Ch. 2. On e-reserve.

·         Epstein, Lee and Jack Knight, “Walter F. Murphy: The Interactive Nature of Judicial Decision Making,” Ch. 8 in Maveety, The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior.

·         Epstein, Lee and Jack Knight, The Choices Justices Make (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1998). Ch. 1-2. On e-reserve.

·         Hammond, Thomas H., Chris W. Bonneau, and Reginald S. Sheehan, Strategic Behavior and Policy Choice on the U.S. Supreme Court (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005).

 

Recommended:

o        Murphy, Walter F., “Lower Court Checks on Supreme Court Power,” American Political Science Review 53 (1959): 1017-31.

o        Danelski, David J., “A Supreme Court Justice Steps Down,” Yale Review 54 (1965): 411-25.

o        Murphy, Walter F., “Courts as Small Groups,” Harvard Law Review 79 (1966): 1552-72.

o        Danelski, David J., “Values as Variables in Judicial Decision Making,” Vanderbilt Law Review 19 (1966): 721-40.

o        Howard, J. Woodford, “On the Fluidity of Judicial Choice,” American Political Science Review 62 (1968): 43-56.

o        Rhode, David W., “Policy Goals and Opinion Coalitions in the Supreme Court,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 16 (1972): 208-24.

o        Rhode, David W., “Policy Goals, Strategic, and Majority Opinion Assignments in the U.S. Supreme Court,” American Journal of Political Science 16 (1972): 652-82.

o        Rhode, David W., and Harold J. Spaeth, Supreme Court Decision Making (San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman, 1976).

o        Maveety, Nancy and John Anthony Maltese, “J. Woodford Howard Jr.: Fluidity, Strategy, and Analytical Synthesis in Judicial Studies,” Ch. 9 in Maveety, The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior.

o        Walker, Thomas G., “David J. Danelski: Social Psychology and Group Choice,” Ch. 10 in Maveety, The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior.

o        Brenner, Saul, “David Rhode: Rational Choice Theorist,” Ch. 11 in Maveety, The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior.

 

Paper Topic 5: Is behavioralism is law and courts research, as exemplified by both attitudinal and strategic approaches, predicated on legal realism?  How useful is behavioralism for studying public law?

 


 

Week 10—Oct 31. New Institutionalism: Rational Choice

 

Required:

·         Cohn, Jonathan, “Irrational Exuberance: When Did Political Science Forget about Politics?The New Republic, October 25, 1999.

·         Hansford, Thomas G. and James F. Spriggs II, The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court (Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press, 2006).

 

Recommended:

o        Green, Donald and Ian Shapiro, Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994).

o        Rogers, James R., Roy B. Flemming and Jon R. Bond, Institutional Games and the U.S. Supreme Court (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2006).

o        Baum, Lawrence, Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006).

 

Paper Topic 6: What is the relationship between the attitudinal model and the strategic or rational choice approach to studying law and courts? Are they compatible, different, etc.? Which approach is most useful for studying public law? 

 


 

Week 11—Nov 7. New Institutionalism: Origins of Historical Institutionalism (“Old” Institutionalism?)

 

Required:

·         Corwin, Edward S., “The Passing of Dual Federalism,” Virginia Law Review 36 (1950): 1-24.

·         Clayton, Cornell, “Edward S. Corwin as Public Scholar,” Ch. 12 in Maveety, The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior.

·         Mason, Alpheus Thomas, William Howard Taft: Chief Justice (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1964), Ch. 9. On e-reserve

·         Davis, Sue, “Alpheus Thomas Mason: Piercing the Judicial Veil,” Ch. 13 in Maveety, The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior.

·         Shapiro, Martin, “Political Jurisprudence,” Kentucky Law Journal 52 (1964): 294-345. On e-reserve.

·         Kritzer, Herbert M., “Martin Shapiro: Anticipating the New Institutionalism,” Ch. 16 in Maveety, The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior.

·         Smith, Rogers, “Political Jurisprudence, the ‘New Institutionalism,’ and the Future of Public Law,” American Political Science Review 82 (1988): 89-108.

 

Recommended:

o        Corwin, Edward S., John Marshall and the Constitution: A Chronicle of the Supreme Court (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1919).

o        Corwin, Edward S., Edward Corwin’s The Constitution and What It Means Today, 14th ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1920, 1978).

o        Mason, Alpheus Thomas, Brandeis: A Free Man’s Life (New York, NY: Viking Press, 1946).

o        Mason, Alpheus Thomas, Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law (New York, NY: Viking Press, 1956).

o        McCloskey, Robert G., The American Supreme Court (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1960).

o        McCloskey, Robert G., “Foreword: The Reapportionment Cases,” Harvard Law Review 76 (1962): 54-74.

o        Shapiro, Martin, Law and Politics in the Supreme Court: New Approaches to Political Jurisprudence (New York, NY: Free Press, 1964).

o        McCloskey, Robert G., The Modern Supreme Court (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972).

o        Gillman, Howard, “The New Institutionalism: Part I,” Law & Courts (1996): 6-11.

o        Shapiro, Martin, Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1981).

o        Gillman, Howard, “Robert G. McCloskey, Historical Institutionalism, and the Arts of Judicial Governance,” Ch. 13 in Maveety, The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior.

 


 

Week 12—Nov 14. New Institutionalism: Law & Doctrine as Constraint

 

Required:

·         Schechter Poultry v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935).

·         Carter v. Carter Coal, 298 U.S. 238 (1936).

·         NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel, 301 U.S. 1 (1937).

·         Wickard v. Fillburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

·         United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

·         United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).

·         Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

·         Gillman, Howard, “What’s Law Got to Do With It? Judicial Behavioralists Test the ‘Legal Model’ of Judicial Decision Making,” Law and Social Inquiry 26 (2001): 465-504.

·         Richards, Mark J., and Herbert M. Kritzer, “Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making,” American Political Science Review 96 (2002): 305-20.

·         Young, Ernest A., “Just Blowing Smoke? Politics, Doctrine, and the Federal Revival after Gonzales v. Raich,” The Supreme Court Review 2005, eds. Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2006) 1-50. On e-reserve.

·         Friedman, Barry, “Taking Law Seriously,” Perspectives on Politics 4 (2006): 261-76.

 

Recommended:

o       Dixon, Robert, G., Jr., “Who Is Listening? Political Science Research in Public Law,” 4 PS (1971): 19.

o       Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

o       Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

o       Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

o        Clayton, Cornell W. and Howard Gillman, eds., Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999).

o        Epstein, Lee and Gary King, “The Rules of InferenceUniversity of Chicago Law Review 69 (2002): 1-133.

o        Kersch, Ken I., Constructing Civil Liberties: Discontinuities in the Development of American Constitutional Law (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2004), awarded the 2006 J. David Greenstone Prize for the best book on politics and history by the American Political Science Association’s Politics and History Section.

o        Friedman, Barry, “The Politics of Judicial Review,” Texas Law Review 84 (2005): 257-337.

o        Thomas, George, “What Dataset? The Qualitative Foundations of Law and Courts Scholarship,” Law and Courts 16 (1, 2006): 5-12. Winner of the Alexander George Award for the “best article or book chapter developing or applying qualitative methods…” given annually by the Qualitative Methods section of the American Political Science Association.

o        Lindquist, Stefanie A., and David E. Klein, “The Influence of Jurisprudential Considerations on Supreme Court Decisionmaking: A Study of Conflict Cases,” Law & Society Review 40 (2006): 135-61.

 


 

Week 13—Nov 21. New Institutionalism: Law & Courts in the Political Regime

 

Required:

·         Dahl, Robert A., "Decision Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker," Journal of Public Law 6 (1957): 279-95. On e-reserve.

·         Adamany, David and Stephen Meinhold, “Robert Dahl: Democracy, Judicial Review, and the Study of Law and Courts,” Ch. 15 in Maveety, The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior.

·         Gillman, Howard, “How Political Parties Can Use the Courts to Advance Their Agendas: Federal Courts in the United States, 1875-1891,” American Political Science Review 96 (2002): 511-24.

·         Pickerill, J. Mitchell, and Cornell W. Clayton, “The Rehnquist Court and the Political Dynamics of Federalism,” Perspectives on Politics 2 (2004): 233-48. Can be accessed via a campus computer at: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/home

·         Whittington, Keith E., “‘Interpose Your Friendly Hand’: Political Supports for the Exercise of Judicial Review by the United States Supreme Court,” American Political Science Review 99 (2005): 583-96. Can be accessed via a campus computer at: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/home

 

Recommended:

o       Eskridge, William N., Jr., “Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions,” Yale Law Journal 101 (1991): 331-455.

 

Paper Topic 7: What is the relationship between the attitudinal model and new institutional scholarship? Are the rational choice and historical institutional approaches compatible? Are they different? Which approach is most useful for studying public law? 

 

Paper Topic 8: What are the differences and similarities in both approach and substantive findings between the literature on the U.S. Supreme Court, on the one hand, and the literature on lower courts including the U.S. Courts of Appeals and trial courts on the other?

 


 

Beyond American Judicial Behavior

 

Week 14—Nov 28. Courts and Social Change

 

Required:

·         Russell, Peter H., Recognizing Aboriginal Title: The Mabo Case and Indigenous Resistance to English-Settler Colonialism (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 2005).

 

Recommended:

o        Rosenberg, Gerald N., The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1993).

o        McCann, Michael W., Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994).

o        Epp, Charles R., The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998).

o        Pinello, Daniel R., America’s Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

 


 

Week 15—Dec 5. Comparative Courts

 

Required:

·         Epstein, Lee, “The Comparative Advantage,” Law & Courts 9 (1999): 1, 3-6.

·         Law & Courts listserv responses to Epstein's article.

·         Hirschl, Ran, Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004).

 

Recommended:

o        Jacob, Herbert, Erhard Blankenberg, Herbert M. Kritzer, Doris Marie Provine, and Joseph Sanders, Courts, Law, and Politics in Comparative Perspective (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996).

o        Hogg, Peter, Constitutional Law of Canada, 4th ed. (Toronto, Canada: Carswell Legal Publications, 1997).

o        Kommers, Donald P., The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany, 2nd ed. (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997).

o        Klug, Heinz, Constitutional Democracy: Law, Globalism and South Africa’s Political Reconstruction (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

o        Jackson, Vicki C. and Mark Tushnet, eds., Defining the Field of Comparative Constitutional Law (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002).

o        Sathe, S.P., Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits (New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press, 2002).

o        Koopmans, Tim, Courts and Political Institutions: A Comparative View (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

o        Castellino, Joshua and Elvira Dominguez Redondo, Minority Rights in Asia: A Comparative Legal Analysis (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006).

o        Goldsworthy, Jeffrey, ed., Interpreting Constitutions: A Comparative Study (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006).

o        Jackson, Vicki C. and Mark Tushnet, eds., Comparative Constitutional Law, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Foundation Press, 2006).

 

Paper Topic 9: To what extent can and/or should public law scholars study social change? What are the obstacles and benefits of doing legal research on social change? Can the literature on organized interests and the courts help in this area?

 

Paper Topic 10: Is there an advantage to studying law and courts comparatively? What are the pros and cons of such an approach?

 

Paper Topic 11: What have been the most important successes of political scientists and court scholars in the public law field? What have been their most serious shortcomings? In answering this question you may want to think about how your own research (or future research) fits into the field.