IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v31y2019i4p677-698.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Presidential action and the Supreme Court: The case of signing statements

Author

Listed:
  • Sharece Thrower

Abstract

Recent attention to presidential action recognizes the legal and constitutional questions surrounding the controversial use of many of these powers. Yet, scholarly research on executive policymaking tends to ignore the role of the courts, instead focusing on presidential–congressional relations. I develop a formal theory of the president’s decision to issue a signing statement in the face of constraints from the Supreme Court. The model produces several novel predictions. First, I predict that the president is more likely to issue a signing statement when he is ideologically aligned with the Court. Second, contrary to previous literature, the president is more likely to issue a statement when his preferences are also aligned with Congress. Finally, when reviewing legislation that is constitutionally challenged, I predict that the Court is more likely to rule in favor of the president’s position when he has issued a signing statement.

Suggested Citation

  • Sharece Thrower, 2019. "Presidential action and the Supreme Court: The case of signing statements," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(4), pages 677-698, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:31:y:2019:i:4:p:677-698
    DOI: 10.1177/0951629819875519
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629819875519
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951629819875519?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. Joseph L. Smith, 2007. "Presidents, Justices, and Deference to Administrative Action," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 346-364, June.
    2. Alexander Bolton & Sharece Thrower, 2016. "Legislative Capacity and Executive Unilateralism," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(3), pages 649-663, July.
    3. Michael A. Bailey, 2007. "Comparable Preference Estimates across Time and Institutions for the Court, Congress, and Presidency," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(3), pages 433-448, July.
    4. Christopher S. Kelley & Bryan W. Marshall, 2010. "Going it Alone: The Politics of Signing Statements from Reagan to Bush II," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(1), pages 168-187, March.
    5. George, Tracey E. & Epstein, Lee, 1992. "On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(2), pages 323-337, June.
    6. Thomas Romer & Howard Rosenthal, 1978. "Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 27-43, December.
    7. Steven A. Matthews, 1989. "Veto Threats: Rhetoric in a Bargaining Game," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 104(2), pages 347-369.
    8. Spiller, Pablo T. & Tiller, Emerson H., 1996. "Invitations to override: Congressional reversals of supreme court decisions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 503-521, December.
    9. Fang‐Yi Chiou & Lawrence S. Rothenberg, 2014. "The Elusive Search for Presidential Power," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 653-668, July.
    10. Ferejohn, John & Shipan, Charles, 1990. "Congressional Influence on Bureaucracy," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(0), pages 1-20.
    11. Deborah Beim & Alexander V. Hirsch & Jonathan P. Kastellec, 2014. "Whistleblowing and Compliance in the Judicial Hierarchy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(4), pages 904-918, October.
    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. Moser, Peter, 1999. "The impact of legislative institutions on public policy: a survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 1-33, March.
    2. Joshua B. Fischman, 2015. "Do the Justices Vote Like Policy Makers? Evidence from Scaling the Supreme Court with Interest Groups," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 269-293.
    3. Ryan J. Owens, 2010. "The Separation of Powers and Supreme Court Agenda Setting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 412-427, April.
    4. Nunnari, Salvatore, 2021. "Dynamic legislative bargaining with veto power: Theory and experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 186-230.
    5. Navin Kartik & Andreas Kleiner & Richard Van Weelden, 2021. "Delegation in Veto Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(12), pages 4046-4087, December.
    6. Turner, Ian R, 2021. "Policy Durability, Agency Capacity, and Executive Unilateralism," SocArXiv stnzf, Center for Open Science.
    7. Tom S. Clark, 2009. "The Separation of Powers, Court Curbing, and Judicial Legitimacy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 971-989, October.
    8. Charles Cameron & John M. de Figueiredo, 2020. "Quitting in Protest: Presidential Policymaking and Civil Service Response," NBER Working Papers 26944, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Groseclose, Timothy J. & McCarty, Nolan, 1999. "The Politics of Blame: Bargaining before an Audience," Research Papers 1617, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    10. Brandice Canes-Wrone, 2001. "A Theory of Presidents' Public Agenda Setting," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 13(2), pages 183-208, April.
    11. Justin Fox & Mattias Polborn, 2021. "On the separation of executive and legislative powers: Executive independence, liberty, and social welfare," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(4), pages 430-454, October.
    12. Keith E. Schnakenberg & Ian R. Turner & Alicia Uribe-McGuire, 2017. "Allies or commitment devices? A model of appointments to the Federal Reserve," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 118-132, July.
    13. Thomas H. Hammond, 2015. "A unified spatial model of American political institutions," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 11, pages 182-200, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Nahum D. Melumad & Toshiyuki Shibano, 1991. "Communication in Settings with No. Transfers," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 22(2), pages 173-198, Summer.
    15. Guimarães, Bernardo de Vasconcellos & Salama, Bruno Meyerhof, 2017. "Contingent judicial deference: theory and application to usury laws," Textos para discussão 440, FGV EESP - Escola de Economia de São Paulo, Fundação Getulio Vargas (Brazil).
    16. Keith Krehbiel, 1996. "Institutional and Partisan Sources of Gridlock," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 8(1), pages 7-40, January.
    17. Thomas H. Hammond & Christopher K. Butler, 2003. "Some Complex Answers to the Simple Question ‘Do Institutions Matter?’," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 15(2), pages 145-200, April.
    18. Helen V. Milner & B. Peter Rosendorff, 1996. "Trade Negotiations, Information And Domestic Politics: The Role Of Domestic Groups," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(2), pages 145-189, July.
    19. S. Nageeb Ali & Navin Kartik & Andreas Kleiner, 2022. "Sequential Veto Bargaining with Incomplete Information," Papers 2202.02462, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    20. Gary E Hollibaugh Jr, 2015. "Vacancies, vetting, and votes: A unified dynamic model of the appointments process," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(2), pages 206-236, April.

    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:sae:jothpo:v:31:y:2019:i:4:p:677-698. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.