Advertisement

Stare Decisis and the Selection Effect

  • Frederick Schauer
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 33)

Abstract

This chapter contends that there are significant systemic obstacles to determining whether the Supreme Court actually adheres to stare decisis. Political-science research suggests that precedent exerts relatively little constraint on the Court’s decisionmaking. The author contends that this research is unreliable, however, because of the selection effect: A strong norm of stare decisis, if it existed, would allow only the closest cases—those where precedent is least constraining—to reach the Court in the first place. Whether the selection effect actually operates in this way, however, depends on whether litigants, lawyers, and lower-court judges believe the Court applies stare decisis. And whether the Court does so is precisely what the empirical studies cannot reveal. As things stand, then, there is no reliable way to know whether the Court really follows precedent. The Court could fill this information gap by conspicuously reaffirming decisions known to be opposed by a majority of Justices, but it rarely has done so. This failure, more than any empirical research, suggests that the Court does not in fact accord much weight to precedent.

Keywords

Selection Effect Previous Decision Analogical Reasoning Supreme Court Decision Strong Norm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alexander L (1989) Constrained by precedent. South Calif Law Rev 63(1):1–64Google Scholar
  2. Alexander L (1996) Bad beginnings. Univ Pa Law Rev 145(1):57–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander L (1998) The banality of legal reasoning. Notre Dame Law Rev 73(3):517–533Google Scholar
  4. Bailey MA, Maltzman F (2008) Does legal doctrine matter? Unpacking law and policy preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court. Am Pol Sci Rev 102(3):369–384Google Scholar
  5. Bailey MA, Maltzman F (2011) The constrained court: law, politics, and the decisions justices make. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartels BL (2009) The constraining capacity of legal doctrine on the U.S. Supreme Court. Am Pol Sci Rev 103(3):474–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bebchuk LA (1984) Litigation and settlement under imperfect information. Rand J Econ 15(3):404–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blom-Cooper L (2009) 1966 and all that: the story of the practice statement. In: Blom-Cooper L, Dickson B, Drewy G (eds) The judicial House of Lords. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 1876–2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brenner S, Spaeth HJ (1995) Stare indecisis: the alteration of precedent on the Supreme Court, 1946–1992. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brewer S (1996) Exemplary reasoning: semantics, pragmatics, and the rational force of legal argument by analogy. Harv Law Rev 109(5):923–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen FS (1933) Ethical systems and legal ideals. Harcourt: Brace, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen FS (1935) Transcendental nonsense and the functional approach. Columbia Law Rev 35(6):809–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper CS (1988) Stare decisis: precedent and principle in constitutional adjudication. Cornell Law Rev 73(2):401–410Google Scholar
  14. Cross FB, Spriggs JF II (2010) The most important (and best) Supreme Court opinions and justices. Emory Law Rev 60(2):407–502Google Scholar
  15. Dobbins JC (2010) Structure and precedent. Mich Law Rev 108(8):1453–1496Google Scholar
  16. Douglas WO (1980) The Court years, 1939–1975. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Dworkin R (2007) The Supreme Court phalanx. N Y Rev Books 54(14):92–101Google Scholar
  18. Eisenberg T (1990) Testing the selection effect: a new theoretical framework with empirical tests. J Legal Stud 19(2):337–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fallon RH Jr (2001) Stare decisis and the Constitution: an essay on constitutional methodology. N Y Univ Law Rev 76(2):570–597Google Scholar
  20. Fon V, Parisi F (2006) Judicial precedents in civil law systems: a dynamic analysis. Int Rev Law and Econ 26(4):519–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Foskett K (2004) Judging Thomas: the life and times of Clarence Thomas. Harper Collins Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Fowler JH, Jeon S (2008) The authority of Supreme Court precedent. Soc Netw 30(1):16–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frank J (1930) Law and the modern mind. Brentano’s, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Frank J (1933) Why not a clinical lawyer-school. Univ Pa Law Rev 81(8):907–923Google Scholar
  25. Hansford TG, Spriggs JF II (2006) The politics of precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  26. Hart HLA (2012) The concept of law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Hathaway OA (2001) Path dependence in the law: the course and pattern of legal change in a common law system. Iowa Law Rev 86(2):601–665Google Scholar
  28. Hilton KN (1993) Asymmetric information and the selection of disputes for litigation. J Legal Stud 22(1):187–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holmes OW (1897) The path of the law. Harv Law Rev 10(8):457–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hutcheson JC (1928–1929) The judgment intuitive: the function of the ‘hunch’ in judicial decision. Cornell Law Q 14(3):274–288Google Scholar
  31. Kastellec JP, Lax JR (2008) Case selection and the study of judicial politics. J Empirical Leg Stud 5(3):407–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kelman M (1985) The forked path of dissent. Supreme Court Rev 1985:227–298Google Scholar
  33. Kessler D, Meites T, Miller G (1996) Explaining deviations from the fifty-percent rule: a multimodal approach to the selection of cases for litigation. J Legal Stud 25(1):233–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kornhauser LA (1995) Adjudication by a resource-constrained team: hierarchy and precedent in a judicial system. South Calif Law Rev 68(6):1605–1629Google Scholar
  35. Kritzer HM, Richards MJ (2003) Jurisprudential regimes and Supreme Court decisionmaking: the Lemon regime and Establishment Clause cases. Law Soc Rev 37(4):827–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kritzer HM, Richards MJ (2005) The influence of law in the Supreme Court’s search-and-seizure jurisprudence. Am Polit Res 33(1):33–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lawson G (1994) The constitutional case against precedent. Harv J Law Publ Policy 17(1):23–33Google Scholar
  38. Lax JR, Rader KT (2010) Legal constraints on Supreme Court decision making: do jurisprudential regimes exist? J Polit 72(2):273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lederman L (1999) Which cases go to trial?: An empirical study of predictors of failure to settle. Case West Reserv Law Rev 49(2):315–358Google Scholar
  40. Lee TR (1999) Stare decisis in historical perspective: from the founding era to the Rehnquist Court. Vanderbilt Law Rev 52(3):647–735Google Scholar
  41. Levi EH (2013) An introduction to legal reasoning, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Llewellyn K (1931) Some realism about Realism—responding to Dean Pound. Harv Law Rev 44(8):1222–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maltz EM (1980) Some thoughts on the death of stare decisis in constitutional law. Wis Law Rev 1980(3):467–496Google Scholar
  44. Paulsen MS (2005) The intrinsically corrupting influence of precedent. Constitutional Comment 22(2):289–298Google Scholar
  45. Posner RA (1986) Economic analysis of law, 3rd edn. Little, Brown & Co., BostonGoogle Scholar
  46. Posner RA (2006) Reasoning by analogy. Cornell Law Rev 91(3):761–774Google Scholar
  47. Priest GL (1985) Reexamining the selection hypothesis: learning from Wittman’s mistakes. J Legal Stud 14(1):215–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Priest GL, Klein B (1984) The selection of disputes for litigation. J Legal Stud 13(1):1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Revesz RL (2000) Litigation and settlement in the federal appellate courts: impact of panel selection procedures on ideologically divided courts. J Legal Stud 29(2):685–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Richards MJ, Kritzer HM (2002) Jurisprudential regimes in Supreme Court decision making. Am Polit Sci Rev 96(2):305–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scalia A (1989) Originalism: the lesser evil. Univ Cincinnati Law Rev 57(3):849–865Google Scholar
  52. Scalia A (1997) Response. In: Scalia A (ed) A matter of interpretation: federal courts and the law. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  53. Schauer F (1985) Easy cases. South Calif Law Rev 58(1):399–440Google Scholar
  54. Schauer F (1987) Precedent. Stanford Law Rev 39(3):571–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schauer F (1988) Judging in a corner of the law. South Calif Law Rev 61(6):1717–1733Google Scholar
  56. Schauer F (2007) Has precedent ever really mattered in the Supreme Court? Ga State Univ Law Rev 24(2):381–401Google Scholar
  57. Schauer F (2008) Why precedent in law (and elsewhere) is not totally (or even substantially) about analogy. Perspect Psychol Sci 3(6):454–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schauer F (2009) Thinking like a lawyer: a new introduction to legal reasoning. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  59. Schauer F (2013) Legal realism untamed. Tex Law Rev 91(4):749–780Google Scholar
  60. Segal JA, Spaeth HJ (1996) The influence of stare decisis on the votes of United States Supreme Court justices. Am J Polit Sci 40(4):971–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Segal JA, Spaeth HJ (2001) Majority rule or minority will: adherence to precedent on the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Shavell S (1996) Any frequency of plaintiff victory at trial is possible. J Legal Stud 25(2):493–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shoenberger A (2009) Change in the European civil law systems: infiltration of the Anglo-American case law system of precedent into the civil law system. Loyola Law Rev 55(1):5–21Google Scholar
  64. Spellman BA (2004) Reflections of a recovering lawyer: how becoming a cognitive psychologist—and (in particular) studying analogical and causal reasoning—changed my views about the field of psychology and law. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 79(3):1187–1214Google Scholar
  65. Stumberg GW (1939) May’s law of crimes. By Kenneth C. Sears and Henry Weihofen. Tex Law Rev 17(4):531–532Google Scholar
  66. Sunstein CR (1993) On analogical reasoning. Harv Law Rev 106(3):741–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Taha AE (2010) Judge shopping: testing whether Judges’ political orientations affect case filings. Univ Cincinnati Law Rev 78(3):1007–1042Google Scholar
  68. The Statistics (2011) The Supreme Court, 2010 Term: the statistics. Harv Law Rev 125(1):362–377Google Scholar
  69. The Statistics (2012) The Supreme Court, 2011 Term: the statistics. Harv Law Rev 126(1):388–403Google Scholar
  70. Wahlbeck PJ (1997) The life of the law: judicial politics and legal change. J Polit 59(3):778–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Waldfogel J (1995) The selection hypothesis and the relationship between trial and plaintiff victory. J Polit Economy 103(2):229–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wasserstrom RA (1961) The judicial decision: toward a theory of legal justification. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  73. Weinreb LL (2005) Legal reason: the use of analogy in legal argument. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wise EM (1975) The doctrine of stare decisis. Wayne Law Rev 21(4):1043–1060Google Scholar
  75. Wittman D (1985) Is the selection of cases for trial biased? J Legal Stud 14(1):185–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations