IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v13y2016i1p5-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Judicial Retirements and the Staying Power of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Stuart Minor Benjamin
  • Georg Vanberg

Abstract

The influence of U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions depends critically on how these opinions are received and treated by lower courts, which decide the vast majority of legal disputes. We argue that the retirement of justices on the Supreme Court serves as a simple heuristic device for lower court judges in deciding how much deference to show to Supreme Court precedent. Using a unique data set of the treatment of all Supreme Court majority opinions in the courts of appeals from 1953 to 2012, we find that negative treatments of Supreme Court opinions increase, and positive treatments decrease, as the justices who supported a decision retire from the Court. Importantly, this effect exists over and above the impact of retirements on the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court.

Suggested Citation

  • Stuart Minor Benjamin & Georg Vanberg, 2016. "Judicial Retirements and the Staying Power of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 5-26, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:13:y:2016:i:1:p:5-26
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12095
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12095
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12095?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles R. Shipan & Megan L. Shannon, 2003. "Delaying Justice(s): A Duration Analysis of Supreme Court Confirmations," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(4), pages 654-668, October.
    2. Miceli, Thomas J. & Cosgel, Metin M., 1994. "Reputation and judicial decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 31-51, January.
    3. Martin, Andrew D. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 134-153, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rorie Spill Solberg & Stefanie A. Lindquist, 2006. "Activism, Ideology, and Federalism: Judicial Behavior in Constitutional Challenges Before the Rehnquist Court, 1986–2000," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), pages 237-261, July.
    2. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    3. Steven Brams & D. Kilgour, 2013. "Kingmakers and leaders in coalition formation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(1), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Arthur Dyevre & Nicolas Lampach, 2021. "Issue attention on international courts: Evidence from the European Court of Justice," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 793-815, October.
    5. Keren Weinshall‐Margel, 2011. "Attitudinal and Neo‐Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 556-586, September.
    6. Giuseppe Vita, 2012. "Normative complexity and the length of administrative disputes: evidence from Italian regions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 197-213, August.
    7. Miceli, Thomas J., 2010. "Legal change and the social value of lawsuits," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 203-208, September.
    8. Álvaro Bustos & Tonja Jacobi, 2014. "Strategic Judicial Preference Revelation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 113-137.
    9. Jule Krüger & Ragnhild Nordås, 2020. "A latent variable approach to measuring wartime sexual violence," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 728-739, November.
    10. Whitman Douglas Glen, 2002. "Legal Entrepreneurship and Institutional Change," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 1-13, June.
    11. Justin Wedeking, 2010. "Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 617-631, July.
    12. Sarel, Roee & Demirtas, Melanie, 2021. "Delegation in a multi-tier court system: Are remands in the U.S. federal courts driven by moral hazard?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    13. Benjamin H. Barton & Emily Moran, 2013. "Measuring Diversity on the Supreme Court with Biodiversity Statistics," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 1-34, March.
    14. Eijffinger, Sylvester & Mahieu, Ronald & Raes, Louis, 2018. "Inferring hawks and doves from voting records," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 107-120.
    15. Gilat Levy, 2005. "Careerist Judges," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(2), pages 275-297, Summer.
    16. Richard Holden & Michael Keane & Matthew Lilley, 2021. "Peer effects on the United States Supreme Court," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), pages 981-1019, July.
    17. Álvaro Bustos & Pablo Bravo-Hurtado & Antonio Aninat, 2020. "The (Other) Effects of Restricting Access to Higher Courts: The Case of Wrongful Terminations in Labor Contracts in Chile," Documentos de Trabajo 534, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
    18. Damian Chalmers & Mariana Chaves, 2011. "The Reference Points of EU Judicial Politics," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 43, European Institute, LSE.
    19. Tasos Kalandrakis, 2006. "Roll Call Data and Ideal Points," Wallis Working Papers WP42, University of Rochester - Wallis Institute of Political Economy.
    20. Eijffinger, Sylvester & Mahieu, Ronald & Raes, Louis, 2015. "Hawks and Doves at the FOMC," CEPR Discussion Papers 10442, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:13:y:2016:i:1:p:5-26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.