Northern Illinois University

Department of Political Science

 POLS 610 Seminar: Judicial Politics

 

“The judicial branch of the Government has only one duty -- to lay the article of the Constitution which is invoked beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former. All the court does, or can do, is to announce its considered judgment upon the question.”

-- Justice Owen Roberts, United States v. Butler (1936)

 

“I think it’s bad, long-term, if people identify the rule of law with how individual justices vote.”

-- Chief Justice John Roberts, 2007

 

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 actively 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. I recommend coming to class with multiple questions and comments for each seminar. You should aim for 3-5 quality questions/comments each meeting. 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.

 

Spring 2011 TH 6:30-9:10 DU 466

Instructor: Artemus Ward

Office: 405 Zulauf Hall

Office Phone: 815-753-7041

E-mail: aeward@niu.edu

Office Hours: T TH 2:00-3:15 & by appointment.

 


Grading

 

Written Work: 70%

 

There are two 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. Failure to cite and discuss relevant course readings and failure to meet the four-page minimum requirement will hurt your paper grade. Similarly, exceeding five pages will also affect your grade as concise yet thorough arguments are the hallmark of academic writing;

 

OR

 

2)       You may write one final course paper (15-20 pages minimum) on a topic of your choice relating to law and courts, broadly defined. If you choose this option, discuss your plans with me as early in the semester as possible. I highly recommend this option for students who wish to pursue a career in academia, particularly in the law and courts subfield. Your goal should be to produce a paper for publication in an academic journal. 

 

Seminar Participation: 30%

 

Grade

Percent

General Grading Definition

A

90-100

High participation: 3-5 quality questions and/or comments EVERY seminar. Note: regularly exceeding 5 may hurt your grade.

B

80-89

Good participation: 1-2 quality questions and/or comments EVERY seminar.

C

70-79

Average participation: 1-2 quality questions and/or comments every other seminar.

D

60-69

Below average participation: 1-2 quality questions and/or comments every three or four seminars.

F

0-59

Failing participation: Rarely if ever providing quality questions/comments.

 

 


 

Required Books

 

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

 

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

 

Randazzo, Kirk, Defenders of Liberty or Champions of Security? Federal Courts, the Hierarchy of Justice, and U.S. Foreign Policy (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2010).

 

Silverstein, Gordon, Law’s Allure: How Law Shapes, Constrains, Saves, and Kills Politics (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

 

Whittington, Keith E., Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007).

 

Selected readings on electronic reserve.

 


 

Course Calendar

 

Introduction

 

Week 1—Jan 20. Introduction to Studying Law & Courts

 


 

The Lasting Legacy of Legal Realism

 

Week 2—Jan 27. 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. On Blackboard.

·         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): 605-23.

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

o        Frank, Jerome, Courts On Trial: Myth and Reality in American Justice. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1936). In particular: 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. 

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).

o        Tushnet, Mark, ed., Arguing Marbury v. Madison (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005).

o        Duxbury, Neil, The Nature and Authority of Precedent (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2008).

 

 

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

 


 

Week 3—Feb 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. On Blackboard.

·         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.

o        Tushnet, Mark, Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999).

o        Powe, Lucas A., Jr., The Warren Court and American Politics (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2002).

o        Kramer, Larry D., The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004).

o        de Been, Wouter, Legal Realism Regained: Saving Realism from Critical Acclaim (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008).

o        Powe, Lucas A., Jr., The Supreme Court and the American Elite (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009).

 


 

Week 4—Feb 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. On Blackboard.

·         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        Whittington, Keith, Constitutional Construction: Divided Powers and Constitutional Meaning (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

o        Whittington, Keith, Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1999).

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

o        Lindquist, Stefanie A. and Frank B. Cross, Measuring Judicial Activism (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009).

 

Paper Topic 2: 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 3: 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 5—Feb 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        Rhode, David and Harold Spaeth, Supreme Court Decision Making (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman, 1976).

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., Lee Epstein, Charles M. Cameron, and Harold J. Spaeth, “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Revisited,” Journal of Politics 57 (1995): 812-23.

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 23 (2007): 303-25.

 


 

Week 6—Feb 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.

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

 

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        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        Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck, Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

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.

o        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).

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        Helmke, Gretchen, and Mitchell S. Sanders, “Modeling Motivations: A Method for Inferring Judicial Goals from Behavior,” Journal of Politics 68 (2006): 867-78.

o        Bonneau, Chris W., Thomas H. Hammond, Forrest Maltzman, and Paul J. Wahlbeck, “Who Controls the Law? The Majority Opinion Author, the Median Justice, and the Status Quo on the United States Supreme Court,” American Journal of Political Science 51 (2007): 890-905.

 

Paper Topic 4: 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?

 

Paper Topic 5: 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 7—Mar 3. New Institutionalism: Origins of Historical Institutionalism (“Old” Institutionalism?)

 

Required:

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

·         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. On Blackboard.

 

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 8—Mar 10. New Institutionalism: Law & Doctrine as Constraint

 

Required:

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

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

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

·         Gillman, Howard, “Review: 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. On Blackboard.

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

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

 

Recommended:

o       Warren, Samuel D. and Louis D. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review 4 (5, 1890): 193-220.

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

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

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

o        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.

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

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.

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

 

Paper Topic 6: 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? 

 


 

Week 9—Spring Break

 


 

Week 10—Mar 24. U.S. Courts in Action: Liberty v. Security.

 

Required:

o       Randazzo, Kirk, Defenders of Liberty or Champions of Security? Federal Courts, the Hierarchy of Justice, and U.S. Foreign Policy (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2010).

 

Paper Topic 7: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s approach? What methodologies are used and are the findings persuasive? To what extent is the author’s research approach a model for future research on law and courts?

 


 

Week 11—Mar 31. No Class: Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association - Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL.

 


 

Week 12—Apr 7. Judicial Elections

 

Guest Seminar Participant: Professor Matthew J. Streb will lead the seminar.

 

Required:

·         Streb, Matthew J., ed., Running for Judge: The Rising Political, Financial, and Legal Stakes of Judicial Elections (New York, NY: New York University Press, 2007). Chapters 1, 8, and 10. On e-reserve.

·         Bonneau, Chris W. and Melinda Gann Hall, In Defense of Judicial Elections (New York, NY: Routledge, 2009). Chapters 1, 3, and 4. On e-reserve.

·         Gibson, James L., “‘New Style’ Judicial Campaigns and the Legitimacy of State High Courts,” Journal of Politics 71 (2009): 1285-1304. On Blackboard.

·         Frederick, Brian and Matthew J. Streb, “Women Running for Judge: The Impact of Sex on Candidate Success in State Intermediate Appellate Court Elections.” Social Science Quarterly 89 (2008): 937-54. On Blackboard.

 

Recommended:

·         Gibson, James L., "Challenges to the Impartiality of State Supreme Courts: Legitimacy Theory and 'New-Style' Judicial Campaigns," American Political Science Review 102 (2008): 59-75. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=996302

 

Paper Topic 8: Why should we study judicial elections? What methodological approach is best for research on this topic? Why? What are the most important findings of the research on judicial elections?

 


 

Week 13—Apr 14. Alternate Explanations of Judicial Behavior: Elite Influence, Approval-Seeking, Reputation-Enhancing, and the Judgment of History

 

Required:

 

·         Schauer, Frederick, “Incentives, Reputation, and the Inglorius Determinants of Judicial Behavior,” University of Cincinnati Law Review 68 (2000, 3): 615-36. On Blackboard.

·         Rosenberg, Gerald, “Incentives, Reputation, and the Inglorius Determinants of Judicial Behavior,” University of Cincinnati Law Review 68 (2000, 3): 637-49. On Blackboard.

·         Johnson, Timothy R., Paul J. Wahlbeck, and James F. Spriggs, II, “The Influence of Oral Arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court,” American Political Science Review 100 (2006, 1): 99-113. On Blackboard.

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

 

Recommended:

 

o        Wasby, Stephen L., Anthony A. D’Amato, and Rosemary Metrailer, “The Functions of Oral Arguemnt in the U.S. Supreme Court,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 62 (1976): 410-22.

o        Cohen, Donald, “Judicial Predictability in United States Supreme Court Oral Advocacy: Analysis of the oral Argument in TVA v. Hill,” University of Puget Sound Law Review 2 (1978): 89-136.

o        Benoit, William, “Attorney Argumentation and Supreme Court Opinions,” Argumentation and Advocacy 26 (1989): 22-38.

o        Schubert, James N., Steven Peterson, Glendon A. Schubert, and Stephen L. Wasby, “Observing Supreme Court Oral Argument: A Biosocial Approach,” Politics and Life Science 11 (1992): 35-51.

o        Wasby, Stephen L., Steven Peterson, James N. Schubert, and Glendon A. Schubert, “The Supreme Court’s Use of Per Curiam Dispositions: The Connection to Oral Argument,” Northern Illinois University Law Review 13 (1992): 1-32.

o        Salokar, Rebecca Mae, The Solicitor General: The Politics of Law (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992).

o        McGuire, Kevin T., The Supreme Court Bar: Legal Elites in the Washington Community (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1993).

o        McGuire, Kevin T., “Lawyers and the U.S. Supreme Court: The Washington Community and Legal Elites,” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1993): 365-90.

o        McGuire, Kevin T., “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success,” Journal of Politics 57 (1995): 187-96.

o        McGuire, Kevin T., “Explaining Executive Success in the U.S. Supreme Court,” Political Research Quarterly 51 (1998): 505-26.

o        Johnson, Timothy R., “Information, Oral Arguments, and Supreme Court Decision Making,” American Politics Research 29 (2001): 331-51.

o        Johnson, Timothy R., Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the U.S. Supreme Court (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2004).

o        Shullman, Sarah, “The Illusion of Devil’s Advocacy: How the Justices of the Supreme Court Foreshadow Their Decisions during Oral Argument,” The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 6 (2004): 271-93.

o        Bailey, Michael, Brian Kamoie, and Forrest Maltzman, “Signals from the Tenth Justice: The Political Role of the Solicitor General in Supreme Court Decision-Making,” American Journal of Political Science 49 (2005): 72-85.

 

 

Paper Topic 9: What do the alternate explanations of judicial behavior (such as elite influence, approval-seeking, reputation-enhancing, and the judgment of history) tell us about the more mainstream theories judicial behavior such as the attitudinal and strategic models? Are they compatible? If not, why not? If so, how so?

 


 

Week 14—Apr 21. 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.

·         Whittington, Keith E., Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007).

 

Recommended:

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

o        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.

o        Pickerill, J. Mitchell, and Cornell W. Clayton, “The Rehnquist Court and the Political Dynamics of Federalism,” Perspectives on Politics 2 (2004): 233-48.

o        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.

o        Frymer, Paul, Black and Blue: African Americans, the Labor Movement, and the Decline of the Democratic Party (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007).

 


 

Beyond American Judicial Behavior

 

Week 15—Apr 28. Courts and Social Change

 

Required:

·         Keck, Thomas M., “Beyond Backlash: Assessing the Impact of Judicial Decisions on LGBT Rights,” Law & Society Review 43 (1, March 2009): 151-86. On Blackboard.

·         Silverstein, Gordon, Law’s Allure: How Law Shapes, Constrains, Saves, and Kills Politics (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

 

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        Klarman, Michael J., From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004).

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

o        Sarat, Austin and Stuart A. Sheingold, eds., Cause Lawyers and Social Movements (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006).

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

o        Foster, Hamar, Heather Raven, and Jeremy Webber, eds., Let Right Be Done: Aboriginal Title, the Calder Case, and the Future of Indigenous Rights (Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, 2007).

o        Valencia, Richard R., Chicano Students and the Courts: The Mexican American Legal Struggle for Educational Equality (New York, NY: New York University Press, 2008).

o        McEvoy, Kieran and Lorna McGregor, eds., Transitional Justice from Below: Grassroots Activism and the Struggle for Change (Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2008).

 

 

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? How does the political regimes literature relate to law and courts research on social change?

 


 

Week 16—May 5. Comparative Courts

 

Required:

·         Gibson, James L., Gregory Caldeira, and Vanessa Baird, “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts,” American Political Science Review 92 (1998):343-58. On Blackboard.

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

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

·         Rogers, James R., and Georg Vanberg, “Judicial Advisory Opinions and Legislative Outcomes in Comparative Perspective,” American Journal of Political Science 46 (2, Apr 2002): 379-97. On Blackboard.

 

Recommended:

**** Tate, C. Neal, “The Literature of Comparative Judicial Politics: A 118 Year Survey,” Paper presented at the Triennial World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Fukuoka, Japan, 2006. An extensive review with bibliography of the literature of comparative judicial politics over a 118 year period. It is available in Word format on Professor Tate’s website.

*** http://www.comparativeconstitutions.org/ - Information on comparative constitutional design and implementation.

o        Waltman, Jerold L. and Kenneth M. Holland, eds., The Political Role of Law and Courts in Modern Democracies (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1988).

o        Holland, Kenneth M., ed., Judicial Activism in Comparative Perspective (London: Palgrave MacMillan, 1992).

o        Tate, C. Neal and Stacia L. Haynie, “The Philippine Supreme Court under Authoritarian and Democratic Rule: The Perceptions of the Justices,” Asian Profile 22 (3, 1994): 209-25.

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        Tate, C. Neal and Torbjorn Vallinder, eds., The Global Expansion of Judicial Power, new ed. (New York, NY: New York University Press, 1997).

o        Hirschl, Ran, “‘Negative’ Rights vs. ‘Positive’ Entitlements: A Comparative Study of Judicial Interpretations of Rights in an Emerging Neo-Liberal Economic Order,” Human Rights Quarterly 22 (4, 2000): 1060-98.

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

o        Morton, F.L. and Rainer Knopff, The Charter Revolution and the Court Party (Broadview Press, 2000).

o        Stone-Sweet, Alex, Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe (New York, NY: Oxford 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        Ginsburg, Tom, Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

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

o        Herron, Erik S. and Kirk A. Randazzo, “The Relationship Between Independence and Judicial Review in Post-Communist Courts,” Journal of Politics 65 (May, 2003): 422-38.

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

o        Scheppele, Kim Lane, “Democracy by Judiciary (Or Why Courts Can Sometimes Be More Democratic than Parliaments),” in Wojciech Sadurski, Martin Krygier, and Adam Czarnota, eds., Rethinking the Rule of Law in Post-Communist Europe: Past Legacies, Institutional Innovations, and Constitutional Discourses (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2005).

o        Sieder, Rachel, Alan Angell, and Line Schjolden, eds., The Judicialization of Politics in Latin America (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).

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).

o        Malleson, Kate and Peter H. Russell, eds., Appointing Judges in an Age of Judicial Power: Critical Perspectives from Around the World (Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 2006).

o        Tushnet, Mark, Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law (Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press, 2007).

o        Ginsburg, Tom and Tamir Moustafa, eds., Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2008).

o        Hilbink, Elizabeth, “Assessing the New Constitutionalism,” Comparative Politics (January 2008):

o        Jackson, Vicki C., Constitutional Engagement in a Transnational Era (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009).

 

 

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.