Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Roberts Court and Criminal Justice: An Empirical Assessment

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An empirical examination of decisions by the Roberts Court can illuminate the contemporary Supreme Court’s impact on criminal justice. The Court’s decisions and the voting patterns of its justices confirm the Roberts Court’s generally conservative reputation with respect to criminal justice. However, contrary to commentators’ assertions about a five-member conservative majority actively reshaping criminal justice law in a rights-restricting fashion, the deeply-divided Court actually produces a notable number of rights-protective liberal decisions. Indeed, when the Roberts Court is most deeply divided on criminal justice issues, it has produced more liberal decisions than conservative decisions, due largely to the voting patterns of Justice Anthony Kennedy whose moderate voting record places him at the Court’s center. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have also made important contributions to liberal decisions in divided cases. Generalizations about the Roberts Court’s conservatism and judicial activism in criminal justice are overstated without recognition of the voting patterns that have contributed to the production of rights-maintaining and rights-expanding liberal decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, D. (1991). Voting blocs and the freshman justice on state Supreme Courts. The Western Political Quarterly, 44, 737–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, R. (2014). Supreme Court declines to review New Jersey’s handgun permit law. Washington Post, May 5. www.washingtonpost.com.

  • Blacksher, J., & Guinier, L. (2014). Free at last: rejecting equal sovereignty and restoring the constitutional right to vote. Shelby County v. Holder. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 8, 39–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake, W. D., & Hacker, H. J. (2010). The "brooding spirit of the law”: Supreme Court justices reading dissents from the bench. Justice System Journal, 31, 1–25.

  • Blasecki, J. L. (1990). Justice Lewis E Powell: swing voter or staunch conservative. Journal of Politics, 52, 530–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bork, R. H. (1990). The tempting of America: the political seduction of the law. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, S. (1982). Ideological voting on the U.S. Supreme Court: a comparison of the original vote on the merits with the final vote. Jurimetrics, 22, 287–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bumiller, E. and C. Hulse (2005, Nov. 1). Court in transition: The overview; Bush picks U.S. appeals judge to take O’Connor’s seat, New York Times : A1.

  • Call, J. E. (2010). The Roberts Court and police practices: the impact of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in police practices cases. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 236–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canon, B. C. (1983). Defining the dimensions of judicial activism. Judicature, 66, 236–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. (2014). What does the Supreme Court really think about the right to counsel? The Atlantic, February 27. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/what-does-the-supreme-court-really-think-about-the-right-to-counsel/284085/.

  • Colucci, F. J. (2009). Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudence: the full and necessary meaning of liberty. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cover, R. M. (1982). The origins of judicial activism in the protection of minorities. Yale Law Review, 91, 1287–1316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, M. (2013). The Roberts Court: the struggle for the Constitution. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, F. B., & Lindquist, S. A. (2007). The scientific study of judicial activism. Minnesota Law Review, 91, 1752–1784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducat, C. R. (2013). Constitutional interpretation (10th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (1998). The choices justices make. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, L., & Martin, A. D. (2012). Is the Roberts Court especially activist? A study of invalidating (and upholding) federal, state, and local laws. Emory Law Journal, 61, 737–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fliter, J. A. (2001). Prisoners’ rights: the Supreme Court and evolving standards of decency. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. (1975). Voting behavior on the United States courts of appeals revisited. American Political Science Review, 69, 491–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. (1968). Conflict and consensus in the United States courts of appeals. Wisconsin Law Review, 2, 461–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grasha, K. (2014, February 7). Evidence in marijuana case tossed. Lansing (MI) State Journal, p. 3A.

  • Greenburg, J. C. (2007). Supreme conflict: the inside story of the struggle for the control of the United States Supreme Court. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhouse, L. (2006a, June 16). Court limits protection against improper entry. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/16/washington/16scotus.html?ex=1308110400&en=eb5b6129ea1260cd&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss.

  • Greenhouse, L. (2006b, May 19). Second hearing on Detroit drug-search case shows deep divisions on Supreme Court. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/washington/19scotus.html.

  • Hammond, T. H., Bonneau, C. W., & Sheehan, R. S. (2005). Strategic behavior and policy choice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck, E. V., & Hall, M. G. (1981). Block voting and the freshman justice revisited. Journal of Politics, 43, 852–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensley, T. R., Smith, C. E., & Baugh, J. A. (1997). The changing Supreme Court: constitutional rights and liberties. St. Paul, MN: West.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hettinger, V. A., Linquist, S., & Martinek, W. L. (2006). Judging on a collegial court. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hettinger, V. A., Linquist, S., & Martinek, W. L. (2003). Separate opinion writing on the United States courts of appeals. American Politics Research, 31, 215–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, A. E. D. (2013). Ten things the 2012–13 term tells us about the Roberts Court. Virginia Law Review Online, 99, 48–68. Retrieved from http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/ten-things-2012%E2%80%9313-term-tells-us-about-roberts-court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. A. (2012). The partisan: the life of William Rehnquist. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelso, R. R., & Kelso, C. D. (2002). Swing votes on the current Supreme Court: the joint opinion in Casey and its progeny. Pepperdine Law Review, 29, 637–688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kmiec, K. D. (2004). The origin of current meanings of judicial activism. California Law Review, 92, 1441–1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liptak, A. (2013a, June 27). Roberts pulls Supreme Court to the right step by step. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/us/politics/roberts-plays-a-long-game.html?pagewanted=all .

  • Liptak, A. (2013b, August 24). Court is “one of most activist”, Ginsburg says, vows to stay”. New York Times:, A1.

  • Liptak, A. (2010, July 24). Court under Roberts is most conservative in decades. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/us/25roberts.html?pagewanted=all .

  • Liptak, A. (2009, January 31). Justices step closer to repeal of evidence ruling. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/washington/31scotus.html?pagewanted=all.

  • Maltzman, F., Spriggs, J. F., & Wahlbeck, P. J. (2000). Crafting law on the Supreme Court: the collegial game. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. D., Quinn, K. M., & Epstein, L. (2005). The median justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. North Carolina Law Review, 83, 1275–1322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maveety, N. (2008). Queen’s court: judicial power in the Rehnquist era. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCall, M. A., McCall, M. M., & Smith, C. E. (2014). Criminal justice and the 2012–2013 United States Supreme Court term. Charlotte Law Review, 5, 35–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCall, M. M. (2011). Sandra Day O’Connor: Influence from the middle of the Court, in C.E. Smith, C. DeJong, and M.A. McCall, eds., The Rehnquist Court and Criminal Justice: 143–168. Lanham, MD: Lexington).

  • Merrill, T. W. (1997). Does public choice theory justify judicial activism after all? Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 21, 219–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R. A. (1996). The federal courts: challenges and reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchett, C. H. (1948). The Roosevelt Court: a study in judicial politics and values, 1937–1947. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radmacher, D. (2010, March 28). Judicial activism for me, not for thee. Roanoke Times. Retrieved from http://ww2.roanoke.com/editorials/radmacher/wb/241274 .

  • Riggs, R. E. (1993). When every vote counts: 5–4 decisions in the United States Supreme Court, 1900–90. Hofstra Law Review, 21, 667–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scalia, A. (1997). A matter of interpretation: federal courts and the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlanger, M. (2008). Jail strip-search cases: patterns and participants. Law and Contemporary Problems, 71, 65–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, P. D., & Yalof, D. A. (2004). The “swing voter” revisited: justice Anthony Kennedy and the first amendment right of free speech.”. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 209–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, H. (Ed.). (2002). The Rehnquist Court: judicial activism on the right. New York: Hill & Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (1989). Decisional trends on the Warren and Burger Courts: results from the Supreme Court judicial data base project. Judicature, 73, 103–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. E. (2013). Brown v. Plata, the Roberts Court, and the future of conservative perspectives on rights behind bars. Akron Law Review, 46, 519–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. E. (2010). Justice John Paul Stevens: Staunch defender of Miranda rights. DePaul Law Review, 60, 99–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. E. (2003). The Rehnquist Court: an empirical assessment. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 19, 161–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. E., DeJong, C., & McCall, M. A. (Eds.). (2011). The Rehnquist court and criminal justice. Lanham, MD: Lexington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprague, J. D. (1968). Voting patterns of the United States Supreme Court: cases in federalism, 1889–1959. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. P. (2014). Six amendments: how and why we should change the Constitution. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, G. R. (2012). Citizens United and conservative judicial activism. University of Illinois Law Review, 2012, 485–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, G. R. (2008). The Roberts Court, stare decisis, and the future of constitutional law. Tulane Law Review, 82, 1533–1559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turley, J. (2009, May 31). Supreme Court overturns landmark case Michigan v. Jackson—with the support of the Obama administration. Jonathan Turley Res Ipsa Loquitur Blog. Retrived from http://jonathanturley.org/2009/05/31/supreme-court-overturns-landmark-case-michigan-v-jackson-with-the-support-of-the-obama-administration/ .

  • Tushnet, M. (2013). In the balance: law and politics on the Roberts Court. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahlbeck, P. J., Spriggs, J. F., & Maltzmann, F. (1999). The politics of dissents and concurrences on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Politics Quarterly, 27, 488–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, T. G., Epstein, L., & Dixon, W. J. (1988). On the mysterious demise of consensual norms in the United States Supreme Court. Journal of Politics, 50, 361–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, R. G., Worthington, S., Reynolds, J., & Nielsen, J. J. (2005). Supreme Court voting behavior 2004 term. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 32, 909–986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, C. (1991). Judicial activism: Bulwark of freedom or precarious security? Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, E. A. (2002). Judicial activism and conservative politics. University of Colorado Law Review, 73, 1139–1216.

    Google Scholar 

Cases Cited

  • Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013)

  • Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)

  • Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995)

  • Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009)

  • Arizona v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 2492 (2012)

  • Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

  • Brown v. Plata, 131 S.Ct. 1910 (2011)

  • Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S.Ct. 2705 (2011)

  • Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)

  • Connick v. Thompson, 130 S.Ct. 1350 (2011)

  • Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988)

  • Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)

  • District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, 129 S.Ct. 2308 (2009)

  • District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  • Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S.Ct. 1510 (2012)

  • Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409 (2013)

  • Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006)

  • Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695 (2009)

  • Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006)

  • J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S.Ct. 2394 (2011)

  • Johnson v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 1265 (2010)

  • Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008)

  • Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012)

  • Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

  • Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990)

  • Maryland v. King, 133 S.Ct. 1958 (2013)

  • McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, No. 12–536 (2014)

  • McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

  • Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009)

  • Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986)

  • Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012)

  • Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

  • Missouri v. Frye, 132 S.Ct. 1399 (2012)

  • Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013)

  • Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009)

  • Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

  • Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 2612 (2013)

  • Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

  • Turner v. Rogers, 131 S.Ct. 2507 (2011)

  • United States v. Alvarez, 132 S.Ct. 2537 (2012)

  • United States v. Gonzales-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006)

  • United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

  • Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, 530 Baker Hall, 655 Auditorium Road, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Christopher E. Smith

  2. Department of Political Science, San Diego State University, Nasatir Hall 126, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA, 92182-4427, USA

    Madhavi M. McCall

  3. Department of Sociology, San Diego State University, Nasatir Hall 216, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA, 82182-4423, USA

    Michael A. McCall

Authors
  1. Christopher E. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Madhavi M. McCall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael A. McCall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher E. Smith.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smith, C.E., McCall, M.M. & McCall, M.A. The Roberts Court and Criminal Justice: An Empirical Assessment. Am J Crim Just 40, 416–440 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9271-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9271-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation