Supreme court

About: Supreme court is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 41858 publications have been published within this topic receiving 306787 citations. The topic is also known as: court of last resort & highest court of appeal.

Justice deferred a half century after Brown v. Board of Education.

Abstract: The road to Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was a slow and circuitous climb, whereas the retreat down from Brown has been swift and direct. This article reviews 4 distinct U.S. Supreme Court eras of racial decisions: the segregation, preparatory, desegregation, and resegregation eras. It notes both the strengths and weaknesses of Brown and discusses the effects of school desegregation. Did racial diversity improve the life chances of African American children as intended? The results of longitudinal research demonstrate that the effects have been positive, although these results are not widely known by the American public. The article challenges this and other misconceptions about school desegregation that have become entrenched in the public's thinking and addresses ways to rekindle the spirit of Brown.

The Supreme Court, the Solicitor General, and the Separation of Powers

Abstract: Supreme Court justices attempt to rule as closely as possible to their policy preferences, but their decisions are not unconstrained. Rather, justices pay attention to the preferences of other actors—including those external to the Court. Whereas most scholars focus on the relationship between the Court and Congress, this article focuses on the relationship between the Court and the executive. Specifically, it argues that justices seek information about how the administration wants them to act because, like Congress, it can sanction the Court for making decisions that diverge from administration policies. Certainly this information can be gathered in a number of ways, but this article argues that when not readily available, justices can obtain it by inviting the solicitor general to appear before the Court as amicus curiae. The findings provide the first systematic evidence that justices actively seek information about the preferences of other actors during their decision-making process.

The Effect of Politically Salient Decisions on the U.S. Supreme Court's Agenda

Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court is widely recognized as setting its agenda by choosing to hear certain cases and refusing to hear others. But what influence, if any, does the Court have on the types of cases that are appealed to it? The Court has no formal power to solicit cases, but I contend that potential litigants interpret politically salient Court decisions as signals of its willingness to hear additional cases in certain policy areas. When this happens, the Court receives additional well-framed cases that allow it to make policy in those areas. The theoretical implications are twofold: (1) by signaling the litigant community to support litigation in certain policy areas, the Supreme Court can bring cases onto its agenda well before the certiorari process begins, and (2) the Supreme Court is dependent on extrajudicial actors and their resources to make comprehensive policy.

An Empirical Test of the Rational Actor Theory of Litigation

Abstract: This article examines the decisions of litigants in criminal cases to appeal decisions from the U.S. Courts of Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Using a random sample of search and seizure cases from 1962 through 1990 and a measure of the likelihood that the appeals court decision will be reversed if cert is granted, we demonstrate that litigants behave as if they rationally consider costs and benefits in their decisions to appeal. Given the extraordinary number of cases decided by lower federal courts vis-a-vis the number of cases the Supreme Court can decide, we argue that such behavior is necessary if the Supreme Court is to retain control over the federal judiciary.

What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?

Abstract: In the Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill decisions rejecting a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide, the Supreme Court allowed each state to decide whether to legalize the intervention.1 In state legislatures rather than courtrooms, factual claims about the probable extent and implications of permitting physician-assisted suicide assume a preeminent role in the debate about legalization.2 Particularly sensitive in these discussions will be the issue of the potential cost savings from legalizing physician-assisted suicide, and how the savings might influence decision making by health care institutions, physicians, families, and terminally ill patients.3–6 Although we do not agree with . . .