scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Reginald S. Sheehan

Bio: Reginald S. Sheehan is an academic researcher from Michigan State University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Supreme court & Majority opinion. The author has an hindex of 15, co-authored 26 publications receiving 1618 citations. Previous affiliations of Reginald S. Sheehan include University of North Texas & University of South Carolina.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: Although normative questions about the role of the Supreme Court as a countermajoritarian institution have long excited controversy in democratic theory, empirical questions about how far the Court acts contrary to majoritarian opinion have received less attention. Time series analyses for the period 1956–89 indicate the existence of a reciprocal and positive relationship between long-term trends in aggregate public opinion and the Court's collective decisions. The Court's ideological composition changes in response to previous shifts in the partisan and ideological orientation of the president and Congress. The Court also responds to public opinion at the margins even in the absence of membership change. Since 1981, the relationship has vanished or turned negative in direction. The Court's ideological balance has been upset by an unbroken string of conservative-to-moderate appointments, thereby undermining the dynamics that promote judicial responsiveness and raising questions about the majoritarianism of the contemporary and future Court.

318 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigated the effect of litigation resources on the success of an appellant appearing before the United States Court of Appeals (USCOP) in both published and unpublished decisions of the courts of appeals.
Abstract: The central focus of this investigation is the effect of litigation resources on the success of appellants appearing before the United States Courts of Appeals. The analysis parallels the earlier study by Wheeler et al. (1987) of who wins in state supreme courts. The findings are that litigation resources are much more strongly related to appellant success in the courts of appeals than in either the United States or state supreme courts. Upperdog litigants win much more frequently in the courts of appeals in both published and unpublished decisions of the courts of appeals even after controls are introduced for partisan and regional effects and the differences among types of cases.

194 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the impact of litigant status and the changing ideology of the U.S. Supreme Court on differences in the success rates of direct parties before the Court.
Abstract: A substantial literature on lower federal courts and state courts suggests that the "haves" usually come out ahead in litigation because they possess superior resources for it and they reap advantages from their repeat player status. We investigate the success of 10 categories of litigants before the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts to determine whether the resources or experience of litigants has effects on Supreme Court outcomes paralleling those found in the courts below. While different categories of litigants are found to have very different rates of success, those differences do not consistently favor litigants with greater resources. A time series analysis of the success of different categories of litigants over the 36 years studied suggests that the changing ideological complexion of the Court has a greater impact on the success of litigants than differences among litigants in resources and experience. W e examine the impact of litigant status and the changing ideology of the U.S. Supreme Court on differences in the success rates of direct parties before the Court. Simply, we seek to explain why some categories of litigants win more frequently than others when appearing before the Court. Previous explanations have attributed differential success rates in lower federal courts to, inter alia, disparities between litigants of different status in judicial experience and resources. We argue, however, that differential success rates in Supreme Court decisions have more to do with the ideological composition of the Court and the Court's receptivity to the different types of legal claims made by litigants of different status. Previous research indicates that the status of litigants before American courts has substantial influence on judicial outcomes. Higher-status parties enjoy significant advantages in appellate courts and usually win. This has been demonstrated in the U.S. courts of appeals (Sheehan and Songer 1989) and, to a lesser degree, in state supreme courts (Wheeler et al. 1987). Curiously, the impact of litigant status on

185 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors examined the influence of public opinion on individual members of the United States Supreme Court during the period 1953-1992 and found that moderate justices were more likely to hold critical swing positions on the Court.
Abstract: Recent aggregate-level research on the United States Supreme Court suggests that shifting tides of public opinion can have important effects on Supreme Court decisions. Moreover, these effects can be both direct (i.e., unmediated by other institutions) and indirect (i.e., mediated through presidential elections and subsequent judicial appointments). This research extends this inquiry by examining the influence of public opinion on individual members of the Supreme Court during the period 1953-1992. Although the majority of justices during this period show little or no evidence of public opinion effects, a significant minority of justices show substantial effects. As predicted by social psychological theories, the impact of public opinion is greatest among moderate justices who are likely to hold critical swing positions on the Court. The effects of public opinion are in addition to significant agenda effects and suggest important refinements in the standard attitudinal model of judicial decision making.

148 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Songer and Sheehan as discussed by the authors examined the success of various types of litigants appearing before the U.S. Courts of Appeals from 1925 to 1988, and found that repeat player haves are much more likely to win in the federal courts of appeals than one-shot haves with fewer resources.
Abstract: This investigation examines the success of various types of litigants appearing before the U.S. Courts of Appeals from 1925 to 1988. The analysis parallels the earlier studies by Songer and Sheehan (1992) and Wheeler et al. (1987) that applied the core concepts introduced by Galanter's groundbreaking analysis of why the haves come out ahead to study litigant success on the U.S. Courts of Appeals and state courts of last resort. The findings suggest that repeat player litigants with substantial organizational strength (haves) are much more likely to win in the federal courts of appeals than one-shot litigants with fewer resources. The haves win more frequently in published decisions, even after controls are introduced for the ideological makeup of the panel. The advantage in appellate litigation enjoyed by repeat player haves is remarkably consistent over time. In particular, the U.S. government has compiled an impressive record in these courts by dominating opposing litigants over the 64-year period of analysis

119 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors outline techniques for estimating linear dynamic regressions with stationary data and weakly exogenous regressors, and recommend analysts (1) start with general dynamic models and test restrictions before adopting a particular specification and (2) use the wide array of information available from dynamic specifications.
Abstract: Dramatic world change has stimulated interest in research questions about the dynamics of politics. We have seen increases in the number of time series data sets and the length of typical time series. But three shortcomings are prevalent in published time series analysis. First, analysts often estimate models without testing restrictions implied by their specification. Second, researchers link the theoretical concept of equilibrium with cointegration and error correction models. Third, analysts often do a poor job of interpreting results. The consequences include weak connections between theory and tests, biased estimates, and incorrect inferences. We outline techniques for estimating linear dynamic regressions with stationary data and weakly exogenous regressors. We recommend analysts (1) start with general dynamic models and test restrictions before adopting a particular specification and (2) use the wide array of information available from dynamic specifications. We illustrate this strategy with data on Congressional approval and tax rates across OECD countries.

976 citations

Journal ArticleDOI

524 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors consider the direct impact of political parties, interest groups, and social movement organizations (SMOs) on policy, providing evidence for a "core" hypothesis and three others that refine or qualify it.
Abstract: This article considers the direct impact of political parties, interest groups, and social movement organizations (SMOs) on policy, providing evidence for a "core" hypothesis and three others that refine or qualify it. The core hypothesis: all three types of organizations have substantial impacts on policy. The other three: (1) when public opinion is taken into account, the political organizations do not have such an impact; (2) parties have a greater impact than interest groups and SMOs; and (3) interest groups and SMOs will affect policy only to the extent that their activities provide elected officials with information and resources relevant to their election campaigns. The source of data is articles published in major sociology and political science journals from 1990 to 2000, systematically coded to record the impact of organizations on policy. The major findings include: political organizations affect policy no more than half the time; parties and nonparty organizations affect policy about equally often; there is some evidence that organizational activities that respond to the electoral concerns of elected officials are especially likely to have an impact.

418 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper examined the effect of monitoring by the Supreme Court on the behavior of circuit court judges and found that the courts of appeals are highly responsive to the changing search and seizure policies of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Abstract: We examine Supreme Court-circuit court interactions from a principal-agent perspective, employing a fact pattern analysis to determine the extent to which circuit courts follow their own policy preferences versus the extent that they follow the policy dictates of the Supreme Court. We then examine whether monitoring by the Supreme Court can affect those interactions. We find that the courts of appeals are highly responsive to the changing search and seizure policies of the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the strong independent effect of the ideologies of the judges gives evidence that judges do find opportunities to "shirk" to satisfy their own policy interests. We also find strong evidence that litigants play an active role in influencing monitoring by the Supreme Court.

331 citations