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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Allen, D. (1991). Voting blocs and the freshman justice on state Supreme Courts. The Western Political Quarterly, 44, 737–747.
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.
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.
Bork, R. H. (1990). The tempting of America: the political seduction of the law. New York: Simon & Schuster.
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.
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.
Canon, B. C. (1983). Defining the dimensions of judicial activism. Judicature, 66, 236–24.
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.
Cover, R. M. (1982). The origins of judicial activism in the protection of minorities. Yale Law Review, 91, 1287–1316.
Coyle, M. (2013). The Roberts Court: the struggle for the Constitution. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Cross, F. B., & Lindquist, S. A. (2007). The scientific study of judicial activism. Minnesota Law Review, 91, 1752–1784.
Ducat, C. R. (2013). Constitutional interpretation (10th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth.
Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (1998). The choices justices make. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
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.
Fliter, J. A. (2001). Prisoners’ rights: the Supreme Court and evolving standards of decency. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Goldman, S. (1975). Voting behavior on the United States courts of appeals revisited. American Political Science Review, 69, 491–506.
Goldman, S. (1968). Conflict and consensus in the United States courts of appeals. Wisconsin Law Review, 2, 461–482.
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.
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.
Heck, E. V., & Hall, M. G. (1981). Block voting and the freshman justice revisited. Journal of Politics, 43, 852–860.
Hensley, T. R., Smith, C. E., & Baugh, J. A. (1997). The changing Supreme Court: constitutional rights and liberties. St. Paul, MN: West.
Hettinger, V. A., Linquist, S., & Martinek, W. L. (2006). Judging on a collegial court. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
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.
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.
Jenkins, J. A. (2012). The partisan: the life of William Rehnquist. New York: Public Affairs.
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.
Kmiec, K. D. (2004). The origin of current meanings of judicial activism. California Law Review, 92, 1441–1478.
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.
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.
Maveety, N. (2008). Queen’s court: judicial power in the Rehnquist era. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
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.
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.
Posner, R. A. (1996). The federal courts: challenges and reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Pritchett, C. H. (1948). The Roosevelt Court: a study in judicial politics and values, 1937–1947. New York: Macmillan.
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.
Scalia, A. (1997). A matter of interpretation: federal courts and the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schlanger, M. (2008). Jail strip-search cases: patterns and participants. Law and Contemporary Problems, 71, 65–88.
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.
Schwartz, H. (Ed.). (2002). The Rehnquist Court: judicial activism on the right. New York: Hill & Wang.
Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Smith, C. E. (2010). Justice John Paul Stevens: Staunch defender of Miranda rights. DePaul Law Review, 60, 99–140.
Smith, C. E. (2003). The Rehnquist Court: an empirical assessment. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 19, 161–181.
Smith, C. E., DeJong, C., & McCall, M. A. (Eds.). (2011). The Rehnquist court and criminal justice. Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Sprague, J. D. (1968). Voting patterns of the United States Supreme Court: cases in federalism, 1889–1959. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Stevens, J. P. (2014). Six amendments: how and why we should change the Constitution. Boston: Little, Brown.
Stone, G. R. (2012). Citizens United and conservative judicial activism. University of Illinois Law Review, 2012, 485–500.
Stone, G. R. (2008). The Roberts Court, stare decisis, and the future of constitutional law. Tulane Law Review, 82, 1533–1559.
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.
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.
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.
Wilkins, R. G., Worthington, S., Reynolds, J., & Nielsen, J. J. (2005). Supreme Court voting behavior 2004 term. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 32, 909–986.
Wolfe, C. (1991). Judicial activism: Bulwark of freedom or precarious security? Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Young, E. A. (2002). Judicial activism and conservative politics. University of Colorado Law Review, 73, 1139–1216.
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)
About this article
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
- Supreme Court
- Constitutional law
- Roberts Court
- Criminal procedure