The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court offers an insightful and provocative analysis of the Supreme Court's most important task--shaping the law. Thomas Hansford and James Spriggs analyze a key aspect of legal change: the Court's interpretation or treatment of the precedents it has set in the past. Court decisions do not just resolve immediate disputes; they also set broader precedent. The meaning and scope of a precedent, however, can change significantly as the Court revisits it in future cases. The authors contend that these interpretations are driven by an interaction between policy goals and variations in the legal authoritativeness of precedent. From this premise, they build an explanation of the legal interpretation of precedent that yields novel predictions about the nature and timing of legal change. Hansford and Spriggs test their hypotheses by examining how the Court has interpreted the precedents it set between 1946 and 1999. This analysis provides compelling support for their argument, and demonstrates that the justices' ideological goals and the role of precedent are inextricably linked. The two prevailing, yet contradictory, views of precedent--that it acts either solely as a constraint, or as a "cloak" that never actually influences the Court--are incorrect. This book shows that while precedent can operate as a constraint on the justices' decisions, it also represents an opportunity to foster preferred societal outcomes.

Presenting a new theoretical perspective, Fix and Kassow show how law and politics shape state high court use of Supreme Court precedent. This book approaches this complex topic in an accessible way that will appeal to anyone interested in law and politics or traditional approaches to legal decision-making.

Do US Supreme Court justices withdraw from cases when they are supposed to? What happens when the Court is down a member? In Ethics and Accountability on the US Supreme Court, Robert J. Hume provides the first comprehensive examination of the causes and consequences of recusal behavior on the Supreme Court. Using original data, and with rich attention to historical detail including media commentary about recusals, he systematically analyzes the factors that influence Supreme Court recusal, a process which has so far been shrouded in secrecy. It is revealed that justices do not strictly follow the recusal guidelines set by Congress, but at the same time they do not ignore these rules. Overall, justices are selective in their compliance with the recusal statute, balancing ethical considerations against other institutional and policy goals, such as the duty to sit. However, the book also concludes that the impact of recusals on policymaking is more limited than commentators have claimed, raising questions about whether ethics reform is really needed at this time.

The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Judicial Behavior offers readers a comprehensive introduction and analysis of research regarding decision making by judges serving on federal and state courts in the U.S. Featuring contributions from leading scholars in the field, the Handbook describes and explains how the courts' political and social context, formal institutional structures, and informal norms affect judicial decision making. The Handbook also explores the impact of judges' personal attributes and preferences, as well as prevailing legal doctrine, influence, and shape case outcomes in state and federal courts. The volume also proposes avenues for future research in the various topics addressed throughout the book. Consultant Editor for The Oxford Handbooks of American Politics: George C. Edwards III.

Analysis of concurrent opinion writing by Supreme Court justices.

This timely Research Handbook offers a comprehensive examination of judicial politics, both in the US and across the globe. Taking a broad view of the judiciary in all levels of the court, it examines the present state of the field and raises new questions for future scholarly exploration.

Judicial Politics in the United States examines the role of courts as policymaking institutions and their interactions with the other branches of government and other political actors in the U.S. political system. Not only does this book cover the nuts and bolts of the functions, structures and processes of our courts and legal system, it goes beyond other judicial process books by exploring how the courts interact with executives, legislatures, and state and federal bureaucracies. It also includes a chapter devoted to the courts' interactions with interest groups, the media, and general public opinion and a chapter that looks at how American courts and judges interact with other judiciaries around the world. Judicial Politics in the United States balances coverage of judicial processes with discussions of the courts' interactions with our larger political universe, making it an essential text for students of judicial politics.

With its often vague legal concepts and institutions that operate according to unfamiliar procedures, judicial decision-making is, in many respects, a highly enigmatic process. New Directions in Judicial Politics seeks to demystify the courts, offering readers the insights of empirical research to address questions that are of genuine interest to students. In addition to presenting a set of conclusions about the way in which courts operate, this book also models the craft of political research, illustrating how one can account for a variety of factors that might affect the courts and how they operate. The renowned scholars and teachers in this volume invite critical thinking, not only about the substance of law and courts in America, but also about the ways in which we study judicial politics.

These are momentous times for the comparative analysis of judicial behaviour. Once the sole province of U.S. scholars—and mostly political scientists at that—now, researchers throughout the world, drawing on history, economics, law, and psychology, are illuminating how and why judges make the choices they do and what effect those choices have on society. Bringing together leading scholars in the field, The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Judicial Behaviour consists of ten sections, each devoted to important subfields: fundamentals—providing overviews designed to identify common trends in courts worldwide; approaches to judging; data, methods, and technologies; staffing the courts; advocacy, litigation, and appellate review; opinions; relations within, between, and among courts; judicial independence; court and society; and frontiers of comparative judicial behaviour—dedicated to expanding on opportunities for advancement. Rather than focusing on particular courts, countries, or regions, the organization of the individual chapters is topical. Each chapter explores an important topic-critically evaluating the state of that topic and identifying opportunities for future work. While the forty-two chapters share a common interest in explaining the causes and effects of judicial choices, the range of approaches to comparative research is wide, inclusive, and interdisciplinary, from contrasts and similarities to sophisticated research agendas reflecting the emerging field of judicial behaviour around the world.

Constitutional scholars Christopher P. Banks and John C. Blakeman offer the most current and the first book-length study of the U.S. Supreme Court's "new federalism" begun by the Rehnquist Court and now flourishing under Chief Justice John Roberts. While the Rehnquist Court reinvorgorated new federalism by protecting state sovereignty and set new constitutional limits on federal power, Banks and Blakeman show that in the Roberts Court new federalism continues to evolve in a docket increasingly attentive to statutory construction, preemption, and business litigation