IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jleorg/v19y2003i2p543-570.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

National Judicial Power and the Dormant Commerce Clause

Author

Listed:
  • Clifford Carrubba

Abstract

We develop a game in which a court monitors states as they regulate trade among themselves. Contrary to commentators who see Supreme Court oversight of state burdens on interstate commerce as the product of a powerfully ascendant court, we argue that the "dormant Commerce Clause" (DCC) originates as the strategic product of an institutionally weak court. We provide three lines of argument. First, we refute the notion that merely observing the court ruling against state governments and those governments complying with its ruling is evidence of judicial power. Second, we show that the equilibria of our "weak court" model directly implies the doctrinal contours of the DCC while the ascendancy hypothesis does not. Finally, we provide evidence that the court announced a weaker version of the DCC doctrine than sincerely preferred by pivotal justices on the court. Our arguments invite a revised understanding of the role of the court in the development of the American political system. Copyright 2003, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Clifford Carrubba, 2003. "National Judicial Power and the Dormant Commerce Clause," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 543-570, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:19:y:2003:i:2:p:543-570
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jeffrey K. Staton & Georg Vanberg, 2008. "The Value of Vagueness: Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 504-519, July.
    2. Michael Gilligan & Leslie Johns & B. Peter Rosendorff, 2010. "Strengthening International Courts and the Early Settlement of Disputes," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(1), pages 5-38, February.

    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:oup:jleorg:v:19:y:2003:i:2:p:543-570. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jleo .

    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.