Through its rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court makes clear what the Constitution means and how best to interpret congressional statutes. But, because Supreme Court rulings do not implement themselves, the Court is dependent on compliance by lower courts to effectuate its policies. Using the concept of jurisprudential regimes developed by Richards and Kritzer in 2002 and specifically the Establishment Clause jurisprudential regime they identified in 2003, we evaluate the extent to which the U.S. Courts of Appeals faithfully implement the Supreme Court's policy in this area of law. We find that decision making by court of appeals panels is indeed structured by the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudential regime, even when taking into account the policy preferences of court of appeals judges. Furthermore we find that this attentiveness to legal factors is not a function of circuit court judges' fear of reversal.
Afifi, A.A., & Clark. V. (1996). Computer-aided multivariate analysis (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Chapman and Hall.
2.
Aldrich, J.H., & Nelson, F.D. (1984). Linear probability, logit, and probit models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3.
Baum, L. (1980). Responses of federal district judges to Courts of Appeals policies: An exploration. Western Political Quarterly , 33, 217-224.
4.
Baum, L. (2006). Judges and their audiences: A perspective on judicial behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
Benesh, S.C. (2002). The U.S. courts of appeals and the law of confessions: Perspectives on the hierarchy of justice. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
6.
Benesh, S.C., & Martinek, W.L. (2002). State supreme court decision making in confession cases. Justice System Journal, 23, 109-133.
7.
Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
8.
Brace, P.C., & Hall, M.G. (1990). Neo-institutionalism and dissent in state supreme courts. Journal of Politics, 52, 54-70.
9.
Brace, P.C., & Hall, M.G. (1997). The interplay of preferences, case facts, context, and rules in the politics of judicial choice. Journal of Politics , 59, 1206-1231.
10.
Brent, J.C. (1999). An agent and two principals: U.S. Court of Appeals responses to Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. American Politics Quarterly , 27, 236-266.
11.
Brent, J.C. (2003). A principal-agent analysis of U.S. Courts of Appeals responses to Boerne v. Flores. American Politics Research , 31, 557-570.
12.
Caminker, E.H. (1994). Why must inferior courts obey superior court precedents ? Stanford Law Review, 46, 817-873.
13.
Carp, R.A., Stidham, R., & Manning, K.L. (2004). Judicial process in America (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
14.
Carrington, P.D. (1999). The obsolescence of the United States Courts of Appeals: Roscoe Pound's structural solution. Journal of Law and Politics, 15, 515-529.
15.
Chase, H. (1972). Federal judges: The appointing process. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press .
16.
Choper, J.H. (1995). Securing religious liberty: Principles of judicial interpretation of the religion clauses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Comparato, S.A., & McClurg, S.D. (2007). A neo-institutional explanation of state supreme court responses in search and seizure cases. American Politics Research, 35, 726-754.
18.
Cross, F., & Tiller, E.H. (1998). Judicial partisanship and obedience to legal doctrine: Whistleblowing on the Federal Courts of Appeals. Yale Law Journal, 107, 2155-2176.
19.
Epstein, L., Martin, A.D., Segal, J.A., & Westerland, C. (2007). The judicial common space. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 23, 303-325.
20.
Gibson, J.L. (1999). Selecting units for analysis: A cautionary note about methods of analyzing cases and judges. Law and Courts , 9, 10-14.
21.
Giles, M.W., Hettinger, V.A., & Peppers, T. (2002). Measuring the preferences of federal judges: Alternatives to party of the appointing president. Typescript, Emory University.
22.
Giles, M.W., Hettinger, V.A., Peppers, T., & Zorn, C. (2006). The etiology of the occurrence of en banc review in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 449-463.
23.
Giles, M.W., & Zorn, C. (2000). Gibson versus case-based approaches: Concurring in part, dissenting in part. Law and Courts, 10, 10-16.
24.
Gillman, H. (2001). Review: What's law got to do with it? Judicial behavioralists test the `legal model' of judicial decision making. Law and Social Inquiry, 26, 465-504.
25.
Goldman, S. (1966). Voting behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals, 1961-1964. American Political Science Review, 60, 374-383.
26.
Goldman, S. (1967). Judicial appointments to the United States Courts of Appeals. Wisconsin Law Review, 86, 186-214.
27.
Goldman, S. (1975). Voting behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals revisited. American Political Science Review, 69, 491-506.
28.
Haire, S.B., Lindquist, S.A., & Songer, D.R. (2003). Appellate court supervision in the federal judiciary: A hierarchical perspective. Law & Society Review, 37, 143-168.
29.
Hall, M.G., & Brace, P. (1996). Justices' responses to case facts: An interactive model. American Politics Quarterly, 24, 237-261.
30.
Hall, M.G., & Brace, P. (1999). State supreme courts and their environments: Avenues to general theories of judicial choice. In C. W. Clayton & H. Gillman (Eds.), Supreme Court decision-making: New institutionalist approaches (pp. 281-300). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
31.
Hart, A. (2004, October 5). Ex-justice loses appeal in 10 commandments case. The New York Times, Section A, page 20.
32.
Hettinger, V.A., Lindquist, S.A., & Martinek, W.L. (2004). Comparing attitudinal and strategic accounts of dissenting behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 123-137.
33.
Hettinger, V.A., Lindquist, S.A., & Martinek, W.L. (2006). Judging on a collegial court: Influences on federal appellate decision making. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
34.
Hoffman, R. (2004, January 10). Alabama 10 commandments monument is gone, but not forgotten. Seattle Times, Religion Section, page B5.
35.
Howard, J.W., Jr. (1973). Litigation flow in three United States Courts of Appeals. Law & Society Review, 8, 33-54.
36.
Howard, J.W., Jr. (1981). Courts of appeals in the federal judicial system: A study of the second, fifth, and District of Columbia courts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
Iaryczower, M., Spiller, P.T., & Tommasi, M. (2002). Judicial independence in unstable environments, Argentina 1935-1998. American Journal of Political Science , 46, 699-716.
38.
Ignagni, J.A. (1994a). Explaining and predicting Supreme Court decision making: The Burger court's establishment clause decisions. Journal of Church and State, 36, 301-227.
39.
Ignagni, J.A. (1994b). Supreme Court decision making: An individual-level analysis of the establishment clause cases during the Burger and Rehnquist court years. American Review of Politics, 15, 21-42.
40.
Kilwein, J.C., & Brisbin, R.A. Jr. (1997). Policy convergence in a federal judicial system: The application of intensified scrutiny doctrines by state supreme courts. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 122-148.
41.
Klein, D.E. (2002). Making law in the United States Courts of Appeals . New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Klein, D.E., & Hume, R.J. (2003). Fear of reversal as an explanation for lower court compliance. Law & Society Review, 37, 579-606.
43.
Kobylka, J.F. (1989). Leadership on the Supreme Court of the United States: Chief Justice Burger and the establishment clause. Western Political Quarterly, 42, 545-568.
44.
Kritzer, H.M., & Richards, M.J. (2003). Jurisprudential regimes and Supreme Court decision making: The Lemon regime and establishment clause cases. Law & Society Review, 37, 827-840.
45.
Kritzer, H.M., & Richards, M.J. (2005). The influence of law in the Supreme Court's search-and-seizure jurisprudence. American Politics Research, 33, 33-55.
46.
Langer, L. (2002). Judicial review in state supreme courts: A comparative study. Albany: State University of New York Press.
47.
Levy, L.W. (1994). The establishment clause: Religion and the first amendment. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
48.
Luse, J.K. (2005). The principal-agent theory and the judicial system: Measuring lower court compliance with the Supreme Court's establishment clause cases, 1972-1996. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
49.
Martin, A.D., & Quinn, K.M. (2002). Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999. Political Analysis, 10, 134-153.
50.
Martinek, W.L. (2000). Judicial impact: The relationship between the United States Supreme Court and state courts of last resort. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
51.
McClurg, S.D., & Comparato, S.A. (2004, September). Explaining state supreme court compliance with the United States Supreme Court: Causal heterogeneity among legal and political factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association , Chicago.
52.
Poole, K. (1998). Recovering a basic space from a set of issue scales . American Journal of Political Science, 42, 954-993.
53.
Reddick, A.M. (1997). The applicability of legal and attitudinal models to the treatment of precedent in the courts of appeals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
54.
Richards, M.J., & Kritzer, H.M. (2002). Jurisprudential regimes in Supreme Court decision making. American Political Science Review, 96, 305-320.
55.
Richards, M.J., Smith, J.L., & Kritzer, H.M. (2006). Does Chevron matter? Law & Policy, 28, 444-469.
56.
Richardson, R.J., & Vines, K.N. (1970). The politics of federal courts. Boston: Little, Brown.
57.
Scherer, N.S. (2005). Scoring points: Politicians, activists, and the lower federal court appointment process. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
58.
Segal, J.A., & Spaeth, H.J. (1993). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
59.
Segal, J.A., & Spaeth, H.J. (1996). The influence of stare decisis on the votes of United States Supreme Court justices. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 971-1003.
60.
Segal, J.A., & Spaeth, H.J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited . New York: Cambridge University Press.
61.
Segal, J.A., & Spaeth, H.J. (2003). Reply to the critics of The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. Law & Courts, 13, 31-38.
62.
Shapiro, M. (1964). Law and politics in the Supreme Court: New approaches to political jurisprudence. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
63.
Shapiro, M. (1968). The Supreme Court and administrative agencies . New York: Free Press.
64.
Sheldon, C.H., & Maule, L.A. (1997). Choosing justice: The recruitment of state and federal judges. Pullman: Washington State University Press.
65.
Songer, D.R. (1982). Consensual and nonconsensual decisions in unanimous opinions of the United States Courts of Appeals. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 225-239.
66.
Songer, D.R., & Davis, S. (1990). The impact of party and region on voting decisions in the United States Courts of Appeals, 1955-1986. Western Political Quarterly, 43, 317-334.
67.
Songer, D.R., & Haire, S. (1992). Integrating alternative approaches to the study of judicial voting: Obscenity cases in the United States Courts of Appeals . American Journal of Political Science, 36, 963-934.
68.
Songer, D.R., Segal, J.A., & Cameron, C.M. (1994). The hierarchy of justice: Testing a principal-agent model of Supreme Court-Circuit Court interactions. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 673-696.
69.
Songer, D.R., Sheehan, R.S. & Haire, S.B. (2000). Continuity and change on the United States Courts of Appeals. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
70.
Spaeth, H.J. (1995). The attitudinal model. In L. Epstein (Ed.), Contemplating courts (pp. 296-314). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
71.
Spaeth, H.J., & Segal, J.A. (1999). Majority rule or minority will: Adherence to precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press.
72.
Stone, G.R., Seidmen, L.M., Sunstein, C.R., Tushnet, M.V., & Karlan, P.S. (2005). Constitutional law. New York : Aspen.
73.
Westerland, C., Segal, J.A., Epstein, L., Comparato, S. & Cameron, C.M. (2006, April). Lower court defiance of (compliance with) the U.S. Supreme Court. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
74.
Wilcox, T.A. (1998 November). Nonconsensual decision-making in non-routine cases: Religion cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association , Atlanta, GA.
