Skip to main content

The Roberts Court and Criminal Justice: An Empirical Assessment

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, access via your institution.

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  3. 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 

  4. 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.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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 

  8. 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.

  9. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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/.

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

  23. 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 

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  30. 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 

  31. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  33. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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 .

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

  37. 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 .

  38. 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.

  39. 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 

  40. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  42. 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 

  43. 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).

  44. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

  48. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  51. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  54. 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 

  55. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  63. 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/ .

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

    Google Scholar 

  65. 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 

  66. 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 

  67. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

Cases Cited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  11. Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  24. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher E. Smith.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

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

Keywords

  • Supreme Court
  • Constitutional law
  • Roberts Court
  • Criminal procedure