IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v98y2017i5p1277-1295.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Politics of the U.S. Federal Judiciary's Requests for Institutional Reform

Author

Listed:
  • David A. Hughes
  • Richard L. Vining
  • Teena Wilhelm

Abstract

Objectives We ask whether the requests the federal judiciary makes to Congress are conditioned either on political factors or on its actual institutional needs. Methods. We build a new measure of the yearly well†being of the federal courts from 1978 through 2013 using factor analysis. We specify two formal models to generate testable hypotheses that help to untangle equilibria behavior resulting from competing claims on judicial preferences for court reforms. We test these claims using data from the chief justice's Year†End Reports on the Federal Judiciary. Results. We find that requests are not conditioned upon the courts' actual institutional needs but instead upon their ideological proximity to the Senate. Conclusion. We conclude that the federal judiciary views its own administration in a similarly political fashion as its elected counterparts.

Suggested Citation

  • David A. Hughes & Richard L. Vining & Teena Wilhelm, 2017. "The Politics of the U.S. Federal Judiciary's Requests for Institutional Reform," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1277-1295, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:98:y:2017:i:5:p:1277-1295
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12378
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12378
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12378?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
    ---><---

    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:bla:socsci:v:98:y:2017:i:5:p:1277-1295. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    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.