The authority of Supreme Court precedent

We construct the complete network of 30,288 majority opinions written by the U.S. Supreme Court and the cases they cite from 1754 to 2002 in the United States Reports. Data from this network demonstrates quantitatively the evolution of the norm of stare decisis in the 19th Century and a significant deviation from this norm by the activist Warren Court. We further describe a method for creating authority scores using the network data to identify the most important court precedents. This method yields rankings that conform closely to evaluations by legal experts, and even predicts which cases they will identify as important in the future. An analysis of these scores over time allows us to test several hypotheses about the rise and fall of precedent. We show that reversed cases tend to be much more important than other decisions, and the cases that overrule them quickly become and remain even more important as the reversed decisions decline. We also show that the Court is careful to ground overruling decisions in past precedent, and the care it exercises is increasing in the importance of the decision that is overruled. Finally, authority scores corroborate qualitative assessments of which issues and cases the Court prioritizes and how these change over time.     

Recent Supreme Court Rulings on Child Testimony in Sexual Abuse Cases

Three recent United States Surpreme Court decisions concerning court testimony in cases involving sexually abused children are discussed. Two of the decisions establish criteria for allowing courtroom procedures (such as televised testimony) that enable a child witness to testify without a direct face-to-face encounter with the alleged abuser. The third decision establishes some criteria for the admissibility of incriminating hearsay statements made by very young children during the course of professional evaluation for reported sexual abuse. Implications of these criterai for decisions about courtroom procedures for obtaining children's testimony and for interviewing children in cases of alleged sexual abuse are also discussed.     

The Causes of Pro-Immigration Voting in the United States Supreme Court1

During the pre-confirmation debate over Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, critics accused her of allowing her background to influence her judicial decisions. This article assesses the validity of such a claim for all sitting justices from 1875 to 2007 in one relevant policy area, immigration. In this article, we look at all 185 immigration-related decisions by the Supreme Court from its creation through 2007. Logistic general estimating equation regression analysis of Supreme Court voting on these cases suggests that justices who were nominated by Democratic presidents, who were urbanites, and who had previous judicial experience were more likely to vote in favor of immigration. However, justices who grew up in the Southwest, had Southern European ancestors, or were ideological conservatives were more hostile to immigration. Although public opinion, the unemployment rate, and the percent foreign-born in a given year did not affect justices’ votes, non-asylum cases and appeals from the Eighth Circuit were more likely to receive favorable treatment. The mean level of racial liberalism of the Senators in office during a particular justice’s confirmation hearings likewise had a large impact on his or her subsequent rulings. These findings suggest that Supreme Court voting on immigration is substantially influenced by justices’ background and political preferences as well as by some political and legal structures. These results thus support Legal Realism and New Institutionalism instead of the Traditional Legal Model of Supreme Court behavior.     

Issue Preferences and Evaluations of the U.S. Supreme Court

While some previous studies have found that public support forthe Supreme Court is related to the ideological direction ofits decisions, these studies were based on data from the WarrenCourt era, a period of high profile judicial liberalism. Sincethen, the Court has grown much more conservative, although itsdecisions have carried a much lower profile. We show that themass media have done little to allow ordinary Americans to followthis change. As a consequence, we find that public evaluationsin the 1990s continued to reflect a 1960s understanding of theCourt, with liberals on racial and gender issues as well asthose least fearful of crime evaluating the Court most favorably.Only those who are both knowledgeable and highly motivated tofollow Court outputs tracked its rightward shift on issues thatare important to them.     

Supreme Court Auditing of the US Courts of Appeals: An Organizational Perspective

Using an aggregate-level model of Supreme Court–circuitcourt interactions, this study assesses the extent to whichthe Court's auditing process of circuit court outputs is shapedby organizational dynamics such as structural capacity, institutionalization,and demographic characteristics. Principals in organizationalhierarchies must audit the behavior of their agents to ensurethat the agents are faithfully complying with the principals'preferences. In the case of the Supreme Court, such auditingactivities must take place in the face of very limited institutionalcapacity on the Court's part. We propose that the Court considerscertain broad organizational and institutional characteristicsat the circuit level when performing this task. In particular,we find that the Court strategically allocates its limited institutionalresources to audit decisions to respond to its recent interactionswith individual circuits in past terms, the circuits' internaldecision-making dynamics (including dissent and reversal rates),and goal conflict between the circuit and the Supreme Court.     

Three Recent United States Supreme Court Decisions for Professionals Who Testify in Child Sexual Abuse Cases

This article provides a basic review of the most recent United States Supreme Court decisions that directly relate to child sexual abuse. These cases are Maryland v. Craig, Idaho v. Wright, and White v. Illinois. More specifically, the article illustrates how the legal principles of these cases practically affect professionals who treat and counsel sexual abuse victims when and if they are called to testify in court proceedings. After a brief introduction, a background section succinctly explains the basic legal principles of confrontation and hearsay which underpin the recent Supreme Court decisions. The rest of the article then analyzes each of the three recent cases and focuses on citing examples of testimony that was or was not admissible. This article is not intended to be an exhaustive legal analysis nor a commentary on the appropriateness of the case holdings, but rather a practical review with specific examples of what the United States Supreme Court has held to be acceptable as of this writing.     

Gender bias in performance evaluations: The impact of gender quotas

The intention behind imposing quotas for women on corporate boards is to close the gender gap in economic participation and help women to be promoted within organizations. However, the broader social psychological literature lends support to ideas that affirmative action policies, such as quotas, may do more harm than good for the beneficiaries. We extend this idea beyond the affected beneficiaries and ask whether this unintended negative effect spills over to women who are not immediate targets of the quota, by signaling incompetence. We develop an experimental design to investigate whether the announcement (study 1) and the implementation (study 2) of a quota for women have a direct negative effect on performance evaluations and hence reinforce the existing gender bias in evaluation. We observed that the performance of women was evaluated significantly lower than that of men. However, this gender bias was limited to sequential (rating) evaluations and was not evident in joint (ranking) evaluations. The quota did not significantly influence the amount of this bias. In addition, we observed more pronounced sexism in males compared to females. Results of study 2 gave a hint to an association between higher sexism and lower evaluations of women’s performance. We also found some evidence for a stronger evaluation bias in females when controlling for sexist attitudes. Hence, our results imply that the bias, which is overall quite robust and strongly pronounced, is still affected by individual gender-related characteristics.     

Using institutional ethnography's ideological circle to portray how textually mediated disability discourse paralysed a Supreme Court of Canada ruling

Persons with disabilities created through texts as damaged goods are being ‘cured’ by workplace accommodation, a textually mediated work process. Prior to 1999, workplace accommodation in the Canadian federal public service signified the adjustments necessary to enable a disabled worker to fit into a workplace designed for able-bodied workers. In 1999, a Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruling known as Meiorin turned this accommodation provision on its head. Instead of being focused on individual-level fixes so that a disabled worker could be accommodated in an existing workplace, this legislation required employers to transform their workplaces so as to make them ready to receive as many different types of workers as reasonably possible from the outset. Using Dorothy E. Smith's institutional ethnography, I use my experiences as a disability rights activist employed in the Canadian federal public service to explicate how textually mediated disability discourse paralysed this groundbreaking SCC ruling.