Gender Equality and the Supreme Court: Taking Another Look
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.1995.16.0.239-252Abstract
A review of 107 gender equality claims reaching the Supreme Court since Reed v. Reed (1971) indicates that the Court's treatment of abortion rights claims differed greatly from non-abortion claims. The Court's changing makeup was strongly related to its support for abortion rights, but not to its support for non-abortion gender equality claims. Litigants and legal facts strongly affected the Court’s support for non-abortion gender equality claims, but not abortion claims. Public opinion indicators were either unrelated (to non-abortion gender equality claims) or showed an unexpected, negative linkage (to abortion rights claims).References
Abraham, Henry. 1987. The Judiciary. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
Alexander, Elizabeth, and Maureen Fielder. 1980. Equal Rights Amendment and Abortion: Separate and Distinct. America 12:314-318.
Baer, Judith. 1991. Women's Rights and the Limits of Constitutional Doctrine. Western Political Quarterly 44:821-852. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448797 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299104400404
Caldeira, Gregory, and John Wright. 1988. Interest Groups and Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court of the United States. American Political Science Review 82:1109- 1127. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1961752
Caplan, Lincoln. 1987. The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the Rule of Law. New York: Knopf.
Cole, David. 1984. Strategies o f Difference: Litigating for Women's Rights in a Man's World. Law and Inequality 2:33-95.
Epstein, Lee, and C.K. Rowland. 1991. Debunking the Myth of Interest Group Invincibility in the Courts. American Political Science Review 85:205-217. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1962886
Epstein, Lee, and Joseph Kobylka. 1992. The Supreme Court and Legal Change—Abortion and the Death Penalty. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Epstein, Lee, and Karen O'Connor. 1988. States and the U.S. Supreme Court: An Examination of Litigation Outcomes. Social Science Quarterly 69:660-674.
Fielder, Maureen. 1984. Bishops' ERA Position Avoids Equality Issue for Abortion Statement. National Catholic Reporter 8:30-32.
George, Tracey, and Lee Epstein. 1991. Women's Rights Litigation in the 1980s: More of the Same? Judicature 74:314-321.
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. 1988. Remarks on Women Becoming Part of the Constitution. Law and Inequality 2:19-25.
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, and Barbara Flagg. 1989. Some Reflections on the Feminist Legal Thought of the 1970s. University o f Chicago Legal Forum (1989):9-21.
Goldstein, Leslie. 1988. The Constitutional Rights of Women. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Gryski, Gerard, Eleanor Main, and William Dixon. 1986. Models of State High Court Decision Making in Sex Discrimination Cases. Journal of Politics 48:143-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2130930
Hagle, Timothy. 1992. But Do They Have to See It to Know It? The Supreme Court's Obscenity and Pornography Decisions. Western Political Quarterly 45:1039-1054.
Ignagni, Joseph, and Thomas R. Marshall. 1994. Who Supports Rights? The Supreme Court and Public Opinion. Judicature 78(3): 146-151.
Kirp, David, Mark Yudof, and Marlene Strong Franks. 1986. Gender Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mansbridge, Jane. 1986. Why We Lost the ERA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Markowitz, Deborah. 1989. In Pursuit of Equality: One Woman's Work to Change the Law. Women's Rights Law Reporter 11:73-97.
Marshall, Thomas R. 1989. Public Opinion and the Supreme Court. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Mathew, Donald G., and Jane DeHart. 1990. Sex, Gender, and the Politics o f the ERA. New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, Margaret. 1985. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: Token or Triumph from a Feminist Perspective. Golden Gate University Law Review 15:493-524.
Minor, Martha. 1987. The Supreme Court 1986 Term, Foreward: Justice Engendered. Harvard Law Review 101:10-45.
Mishler, William, and Reginald Sheehan. 1993. The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions. American Political Science Review 87:87-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2938958
O'Connor, Karen. 1980. Women's Organizations' Use of the Courts. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
_________. 1988. She Shall Overcome. Human Rights 15:24.
O'Connor, Karen, and Lee Epstein. 1983. Sex and the Supreme Court: An Analysis of Judicial Support for Gender-Based Claims. Social Science Quarterly 64:327-331.
O'Connor, Karen, and Jeffrey Segal. 1990. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the Supreme Court's Reaction to Its First Female Member. In Naomi Lynn, ed., Women, Politics and the Constitution. New York: Haworth Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/j014v10n02_07 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1554477x.1990.9970572
Rehnquist, William. 1987. The Supreme Court. New York: William Morrow.
Rhode, Deborah. 1989. Justice and Gender. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rubin, Eva. 1986. The Supreme Court and the American Family.New York: Greenwood Press.
Savage, David. 1992. Turning Right—The Makings of the Rehnquist Supreme Court. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Segal, Jeffrey. 1984. Predicting Supreme Court Cases Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases, 1962-1981. American Political Science Review 78:891-900. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1955796
Segal, Jeffrey, and Harold Spaeth. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sherry, Suzanna. 1986. Civic Virtue and the Feminine Voice in Constitutional Adjudication. Virginia Law Review 72:543-616. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1072973
Smith, Tom. 1990. Liberal and Conservative Trends in the United States Since World War II. Public Opinion Quarterly 54:479-507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/269224
Stidman, Ronald, Robert Carp, and C.K. Rowland. 1983. Women's Rights Before the Federal District Courts, 1971-1977. American Politics Quarterly 11:205-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004478083011002004
Stimson, Jim. 1992. Public Opinion In America—Moods, Cycles, and Swings. Boulder: Westview.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:
The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;
Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
The Author represents and warrants that:
the Work is the Author’s original work;
the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
the Work has not previously been published;
the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
