Political Behavior

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 349–366

Presidential Bureaucratic Power and Supreme Court Justice Voting

  • Jeff Yates


Presidency scholars suggest that the federal bureaucracy has become “presidentialized” and that the federal agencies have become a primary tool for presidential policy implementation. However, in its review of federal agency litigation, the Supreme Court stands as an important monitor of executive bureaucratic action. Here, the conditions under which Supreme Court justices choose to facilitate executive bureaucratic action are assessed. This study tests the proposition that Supreme Court justices' voting decisions to support the president's bureaucratic agents are conditioned upon theoretically interesting extra-legal factors. Logistic regression analysis was conducted on justices' votes from Supreme Court cases involving cabinet and independent agencies during the years 1953–1995. The results indicate that Supreme Court justices' voting decisions to favorably review bureaucratic actions are influenced by extra-legal factors including attitudinal, political, and external concerns.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aldrich, John H. and Forrest D. Nelson. (1984). Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Biskupic, Joan and Elder Witt. (1997). Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, Third Edition. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Brace, Paul and Barbara Hinckley. (1992). Follow the Leader: Opinion Polls and the Modern Presidents. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Brace, Paul and Melinda Gann Hall. (1993). Integrated Models of Judicial Dissent. Journal of Politics 55:914–45.Google Scholar
  5. Canon, Bradley C. and Michael Giles. (1972). Recurring Litigants: Federal Agencies Before the Supreme Court. Western Political Quarterly 25:183–91.Google Scholar
  6. Crowley, Donald W. (1987). Judicial Review of Administrative Agencies: Does the Type of Agency Matter. Western Political Quarterly 31:265–83.Google Scholar
  7. Devins, Neal. (1994). Unitariness and Independence: Solicitor General Control Over Independent Agency Litigation. California Law Review 82:255–327.Google Scholar
  8. Ducat, Craig R., and Robert L. Dudley. (1989). Federal District Judges and Presidential Power During the Postwar Era. Journal of Politics 51:98–118.Google Scholar
  9. Edwards, George C. (1989). At the Margins: Presidential Leadership of Congress. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Edwards, George C. and Stephen J. Wayne. (1994). Presidential Leadership: Politics and Policy Making. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
  11. Epstein, Lee and Jack Knight. (1998). The Choices Justices Make. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  12. Eskridge, William N. (1991). Reneging on History? Playing the Court/Congress/President Civil Rights Game. California Law Review 79:613–84.Google Scholar
  13. Flemming, Roy B. and B. Dan Wood. (1997). The Public and the Supreme Court: Individual Justice Responsiveness to American Policy Moods. American Journal of Political Science 41:468–98.Google Scholar
  14. Freidrich, Robert J. (1982). In Defense of Multiplicative Terms in Multiple Regression Equations. American Journal of Political Science 26:797–833.Google Scholar
  15. Handberg, Roger. (1979). The Supreme Court and Administrative Agencies: 1965–1978. Journal of Contemporary Law 6:161–76.Google Scholar
  16. Kearney, Richard C. and Reginald S. Sheehan. (1992). Supreme Court Decision Making: The Impact of Court Composition on State and Local Government Litigation. Journal of Politics 54:1009–1025.Google Scholar
  17. King, Gary. (1993). The Methodology of Presidential Research. In George C. Edwards III, John H. Kessel, and Bert A. Rockman (eds.), Researching the Presidency. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mishler, William and Reginald S. Sheehan. (1996). Public Opinion, the Attitudinal Model, and Supreme Court Decision Making: A Micro-Analytic Perspective. Journal of Politics 58:169–200.Google Scholar
  19. Moe, Terry M. (1991). The Politicized Presidency. In James P. Pfiffner (ed.), The Managerial Presidency. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Moe, Terry M. and Scott A. Wilson. (1994). Presidents and the Politics of Structure. Law and Contemporary Problems 57:1–44.Google Scholar
  21. Moe, Terry M. (1998). The Presidency and the Bureaucracy: The Presidential Advantage. In Michael Nelson (ed.), The Presidency and the Political System. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  22. Murphy, Walter F. (1964). Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Pritchett, Herman. (1948). The Roosevelt Court: A Study in Judicial Politics and Values 1937–1947. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Provine, Doris Marie. (1980). Case Selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rivers, Douglas and Nancy L. Rose. (1985). Passing the President's Program: Public Opinion and Presidential Influence in Congress. American Journal of Political Science 29:183–96.Google Scholar
  26. Romano, Roberta. (1994). Comment on ‘Presidents and the Politics of Structure.’ Law and Contemporary Problems 57:59–63.Google Scholar
  27. Rourke, Francis. (1991). Presidentializing the Bureaucracy: From Kennedy to Reagan. In James P. Pfiffner (ed.), The Managerial Presidency. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Segal, Jeffrey A. and Harold J. Spaeth. (1993). The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Segal, Jeffrey, Lee Epstein, Charles Cameron, and Harold Spaeth. (1995). Ideological Values and the Votes of Justices Revisited. Journal of Politics 57(3):812–23.Google Scholar
  30. Shapiro, Martin. (1968). The Supreme Court and Administrative Agencies. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sheehan, Reginald S. (1990). Administrative Agencies and the Court: A Reexamination of the Impact of Agency Type on Decisional Outcomes. Western Political Quarterly 43: 875–85.Google Scholar
  32. Sheehan, Reginald S. (1992). Federal Agencies and the Supreme Court. American Politics Quarterly 20:478–500.Google Scholar
  33. Skowronek, Stephen. (1993). The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership From John Adams to George Bush. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  34. Spaeth, Harold. (1994). United States Supreme Court Judicial Database, 1953–1995 Terms. Ann Arbor, Mich.: ICPSR Study #9422.Google Scholar
  35. Stimson, James A., Michael B. MacKuen, and Robert S. Erikson. (1995). Dynamic Representation. American Political Science Review 89:543–65.Google Scholar
  36. Tanenhaus, Joseph. (1960). Supreme Court Attitudes Toward Federal Administrative Agencies. Journal of Politics 22:502–24.Google Scholar
  37. Tribe, Lawrence H. (1985). God Save this Honorable Court. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  38. Yates, Jeff and Andrew Whitford. (1998). Presidential Power and the United States Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly 51:539–50.Google Scholar
  39. Zorn, Christopher J.W. (1997a). U.S. Government Litigation Strategies in the Federal Appellate Courts. Ph.D. diss. Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  40. Zorn, Christopher J.W. (1997b). When (and Why) Does the U.S. Go to Court? Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeff Yates
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of GeorgiaAthens

Personalised recommendations