Supreme Court Decision Making: An Individual-Level Analysis of the Establishment Clause Cases During the Burger and Rehnquist Court Years
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.1994.15.0.21-42Abstract
In the first Establishment Clause case decided by the Burger Court, the U.S. Supreme Court laid down a new constitutional test. With this addition, the Court now had in place the third prong of a three-part Establishment Clause test. However, this three-part test has not settled what is allowable in church-state relations for many scholars. In fact, it is often complained that constitutional law in this area is confused and conflicting. This study attempts to show that the votes of the justices are not as uncertain or unpredictable as previously has been claimed. It also endeavors to contribute to explaining Supreme Court decision making in general. A fact-attitudinal model is derived from judicial behavior theory, cognitive-cybernetic decision-making theory, and the writings of the justices themselves. The results suggest that the model has explanatory as well as predictive value during both the Burger and early Rehnquist Court years.References
Aguilar v. Felton. 1985. 473 U.S. 402.
Aldrich. John, and Forrest Nelson. 1984. Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Armstrong, Virginia, and Charles Johnson. 1982. Certiorari Decisions by the Warren and Burger Courts: Is Cue Theory Time Bound? Polity 15: 143-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3234599
Canon. Bradley and Michael Giles. 1972. Recurring Litigants: Federal Agencies Before the Supreme
Caplan, Lincoln. 1987. The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the Rule o f Law. New York: Knopf.
Choper, Jesse. 1980. The Religion Clauses o f the First Amendment: Reconciling the Conflict. University of Pittsburg Law Review 41: 680.
___________ . 1986. In Leonard Levy, ed., Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan.
Cohen, William, and John Kaplan. 1982. Constitutional Law, second ed. Mineola, NY: The Foundation Press.
De Tocqueville, Alexis. 1945. Democracy in America, revised edition. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Engel v. Vitale. 1962. 370 U.S. 421.
Estate o f Thornton v. Caldor. 1985. 472 U.S. 703.
Everson v. Board o f Education. 1947. 330 U.S. 1.
George, Tracey and Lee Epstein. 1992. On the Nature o f Supreme Court Decision Making. American Political Science Review 86: 323-337. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1964223
Gryski, Gerard, Eleanor Main, and William Dixon. 1986. Models of State High Court Decision Making in Sex Discrimination Cases. Journal o f Politics 48: 143-153.
Grunes, Rodney. 1990. Lobbying the Supreme Court: Reagan's Solicitor General and the Establishment Clause. Midsouth Political Science Journal 11: 31-55.
Hunt v. McNair. 1973. 413 U.S. 734.
Ignagni. Joseph. 1993. U.S. Supreme Court Decision-Making and the Free Exercise Clause. Review of Politics 55: 511-529.
Kort, Fred. 1957. Predicting Supreme Court Decisions Mathematically: A Quantitative Analysis of the Right to Counsel Cases. American Political Science Review 51: 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1951767
___________ . 1973. Regression Analysis and Discriminant Analysis: An Application of R.A. Fisher's Theorem to Data in Political Science. American Political Science Review 67: 555- 559. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1958783
Larson v. Valente. 1982. 456 U.S. 228.
Lemon v. Kurtzjman. 1971. 403 U.S. 602.
Lynch v. Donnelly. 1984. 465 U.S. 668.
Marsh v. Chambers. 1983. 463 U.S. 783.
McCarthy, Martha. 1983. A Delicate Balance: Church, State and the Schools. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Education Foundation.
Mueller and Noyes v. Allen. 1983. 463 U.S. 388.
Negre v. Larson. 1971. 401 U.S. 437.
Nowak, John, Ronald Rotunda, and J. Nelson Young. 1978. Constitutional Law. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
O Connor, Karen. 1983. The Amicus Curiae Role o f the U.S. Solicitor General in Supreme Court Litigation. Judicature 66: 256-264.
Pfeffer, Leo. 1967. Church, State, and Freedom. Boston: Beacon Press.
___________ . 1979. The Current State o f the Law in the U.S. and the Separationist Agenda. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 1979: 1-9.
___________ . 1984. Religion, State and the Burger Court. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Pindyck, Robert, and Daniel Rubinfeld. 1976. Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Puro, Steven. 1981. The United States as Amicus Curiae. In S. Sidney Ulmer, ed., Courts, Law, and the Judicial Process. New York: Free Press.
Rohde, David, and Harold Spaeth. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co.
School District of Grand Rapids v. Ball. 1985. 473 U.S. 381.
School District v. Schempp. 1963. 374 U.S. 203.
Scigliano. Robert. 1971. The Supreme Court and the Presidency. New York: Free Press.
Segal. Jeffrey. 1984. Predicting Supreme Court Cases Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases, 1962-1981. American Political Science Review 78: 891-900.
___________1985. Measuring Change on the Supreme Court: Examining Alternative Models. American Journal of Political Science 29: 461-478. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111139
___________ 1986. Supreme Court Justices as Human Decision Makers: An Individual-Level Analysis of the Search and Seizure Cases. Journal of Politics 48: 938. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2131006
___________. 1988. Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General during the Warren and Burger Courts: A Research Note. Western Political Quarterly 41: 135-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448461
___________ and Albert Cover. 1989. Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices. American Political Science Review 83: 557-565. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1962405
___________ and Harold Spaeth. 1989. Decisional Trends on the Warren and Burger Courts. Judicature 73: 103-107.
Simon. Herbert. 1957. Models of Man. New York: John Wiley.
___________. 1959. Theories of Decision Making in Economics. American Economic Review 49: 253-283.
___________ . 1979. Models of Thought. New Haven: Yale University Press.
___________ . 1981. Sciences of the Artificial, second edition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
___________ . 1985. Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue o Psychology with Political Science. American Political Science Review 79: 293-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1956650
Sloan v. Lemon. 1973. 413 U.S. 825.
Songer. Donald. 1979. Concern for Policy Outputs as a Cue for Supreme Court Decisions on Certiorari. Journal of Politics 41: 1185-1194.
Spaeth, Harold. 1979. Supreme Court Policy Making. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co.
Steinbruner. John D. 1974. The Cybernetic Theory of Decision. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tager. Evan. 1984. The Supreme Court. Effect Inquiry, and Aid to Parochial Education. Stanford Law Review 37: 219-251.
Tanenhaus, Joseph. 1960. Supreme Court Attitudes Toward Administrative Agencies. Journal of Politics 22: 502-521. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2126894
___________, M. Schick, M. Muraskin, and D. Rosen. 1963. The Supreme Court's Certiorari Jurisdiction and Cue Theory. In Glendon Schubert, ed., Judicial Decision Making. Glencoe. IL: Free Press.
Teger, Stuart, and Douglas Kosinski. 1980. The Cue Theory o f Supreme Court Certiorari Jurisdiction: A Reconsideration. Journal of Politics 42: 834-846. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2130555
Tilton v. Richardson. 1971. 403 U.S. 672.
Tribe, Laurence. 1978. American Constitutional Law. Mineola. NY: The Foundation Press.
Ulmer. S. Sidney. 1962. Supreme Court Behavior in Racial Exclusion Cases: 1935-1960. American Political Science Review 56: 325-330.
___________. 1984. The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a Predictive Variable. American Political Science Review 78: 902-911.
___________ . William Hintze, and Louise Kirklosky. 1972. The Decision to Grant or Deny Certiorari: Further Consideration of Cue Theory. Law and Society Review 6: 637-643. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3052953
U.S. Department of Justice. 1985. Annual Report of the Attorney General o f the United States, 1984. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wallace v. Jaffree. 1985. 472 U.S. 38.
Walz v. Tax Commission. 1970. 397 U.S. 664.
Werdegar, Kathryn Mickle. 1967. The Solicitor General and Administrative Due Process. George Washington Law Review 36: 481-514.
Widmarv. Vincent. 1981. 454 U.S. 263.
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.
