These briefs are meant to convince the justices who should win the case. As a further example, the new interpretation of the commerce clause laid down in Wickard v. The analysis provided by legal scholars is both theoretically and empirically unsatisfying. As such, a preference cycle could exist whereby a case was continually granted and then dismissed (Riker, 1982). He wrote a book about how important the Supreme Court is. There is clear evidence that chiefs (and sometimes senior associates) act strategically to ensure the opinion assignment power. Assuming the case is capable of being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, the first step, most of the time, is to file a lawsuit in your local state or federal court. Note that litigant briefs most often address policy and constitutional issues—this is not surprising given the description of justices as seekers of policy preferences (Epstein & Knight, 1998; Segal & Spaeth, 2002). During these proceedings attorneys for each side of a case present their best arguments to the justices in an effort to convince the Court to rule in a particular way. This is not to say the other seven justices are moot—to the contrary, the following example demonstrates the impact any single justice can have in this dynamic process. Two explanations have been given in the literature for why this does not happen on the Court. Faced with a court ruling that overturns one of its laws, Congress may rewrite the law or even begin a constitutional amendment process. Johnson (2004) offers such insight; he provides a breakdown of issues briefed in a random sample of 75 Burger Court civil liberties cases. Debates the attorneys have with judges. It holds a few hundred people. Beyond the information they provide to the justices, there is evidence that the quality of oral arguments forwarded by attorneys during these proceedings affects justices’ votes (Johnson, Wahlbeck, & Spriggs, 2006). The Courtroom holds only 250 seats for spectators, and there are no cameras allowed during either proceeding. Elizabeth Slattery of the Heritage Foundation says the modern Supreme Court aims not to change the laws too quickly. He too felt the crux of the issue was striking a correct balance between First and Sixth Amendment rights, but that Blackmun’s opinion tilted too far in favor of the press. The exceptions clause in Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the power to alter the Court’s appellate jurisdiction as it sees fit. In the end, this part of the Court’s decision-making process plays a vital role for the justices. This law established the circuit courts of appeals and codified that no right of appeal to the Supreme Court existed. . In contrast, with the exception of one hour set aside for litigants to present oral arguments in most cases it decides, and the public announcement of its decisions, the work of the U.S. Supreme Court is conducted almost completely outside of the public’s eye.3 As a result, the Court’s decision-making process is largely opaque, and therefore the public knows very little about how the justices reach the decisions that affect every part and every citizen of the United States. The result is that Rule of Four cases ultimately receive treatment similar to cases granted review with five or more votes. Oral arguments and opinion announcements are technically public, but not fully so. In other words, the Court will not hear the case. Of the 7,000 to 8,000 cert petitions filed each term, the court grants certiorari and hears oral argument in only about 80. The Supreme Court also defines religious rights, workers’ rights, students’ rights, property rights, and privacy rights. Since at least the time of John Marshall’s tenure on the Court (and through the 1960s), the discussion of a case at conference started with the chief and concluded with the most junior justice, while voting proceeded in the opposite fashion (see Clark, 1959). The following day, Powell sent a memo to Blackmun expressing doubts about how the majority opinion was taking shape. The public can stand in line and try to get a seat to listen to lawyers and justices discussing a case. For instance, Stevens (1983) argues that the Rule of Four comes into play in about 25% of all cases that make the discuss list. 7. The rules surrounding these briefs on the merits are discussed along with the research that seeks to explain the extent to which written arguments affect the decisions justices make. Empirical work on the Rule of Four focuses almost exclusively on how it affects the size of the Court’s docket each term. This suggests to Wahlbeck et al. Indeed, the president is the most visible political figure in the nation, and the work of Congress is covered (at a minimum) on a regular basis by the mass media. These groups, called amici curiae (friends of the Court), affect the probability the justices will hear a case (see, e.g., Caldeira & Wright, 1988). More specifically, to assuage the worry that the Court would reject cases that could be potentially important, Van Devanter explained that: We always grant petitions when as many as four think that it should be granted and sometimes when as many as three think that way. Combining a theoretical account of Supreme Court decision-making with an examination of its internal decision-making process illuminates this opaque institution. Amicus participation ranged from zero to 97 briefs—the former occurring in only two cases, with the latter in support of Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013), one of the term’s two same-sex marriage cases. With respect to the latter point, scholars have offered some answers, albeit not theoretically satisfying ones. As such, several political scientists have attempted to systematically analyze the Rule of Four. The attitudinal model of Supreme Court decision-making suggests that justices are unconstrained in their ability to vote for their most preferred policy outcomes because they enjoy life tenure (Segal & Spaeth, 2002). As noted, it takes four votes for the Court to hear a case. As such, advocates sometimes spoke for many hours over multiple days. All public lectures and visitor programs are temporarily suspended. This consistency indicates justices pursue specific policy goals, and rarely waver from doing so. But the majority opinion is the final ruling. cases are part of the Court’s discretionary docket. In this model, a justice’s decision to join an opinion is operationalized as a simple choice between the existing majority opinion and the lower court decision: any justice preferring policy offered in the majority opinion will sign on. In order to fully explicate the complexities of opinion writing, the process is described, the two main (and competing) models of opinion writing that define key actors who influence the final content of the majority opinion are summarized, and a case study of Gannett v. DePasquale—an exemplar of the opinion-writing and decision-making process—is presented. Research that focuses on the key rule that governs the Court’s agenda-setting process—the Rule of Four—is presented. Understanding this process will allow scholars, students of the Court, and Court watchers alike to gain a better understanding of the way in which the justices conduct their business and to come to terms with some of the most important legal and political decisions in our nation’s history. One or more of those justices is asked to write the “majority opinion.” Justices who disagree may write a “minority opinion.” All opinions are released. See, for example, the joint appendix in one of the Court’s famous libel cases—Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988). In fact, it sets the stage for the final part of the process—opinion writing. Although Powell had not yet declared any intentions, he had voted with this coalition at conference. 15 That is, by granting a hearing and by then issuing a ruling on a case from a lower court, the Supreme Court sets national doctrine by either applying the lower court’s ruling to the entire country or by reversing the ruling of the lower court altogether… For example, many of America’s founders accepted slavery. Other scholars have provided evidence of strategic interaction at almost every stage of the Court’s decision-making process, including during the agenda setting (certiorari) stage (Caldeira, Wright, & Zorn, 1999), during oral arguments (Johnson, 2004), and during conference discussions (Johnson, Spriggs, & Wahlbeck, 2005). When justices give one side a harder time (by asking more questions) or when they ask that side questions using less pleasant language, it is more likely to lose the case (while this does not necessarily show causality the correlation between these phenomena is quite robust). Chief Justice Roberts has said publicly that, “We [the Court] are the most transparent branch of government. Elizabeth Slattery of the Heritage Foundation notes that justices are not supposed to be political. Finally, scholars address the interactions that take place between justices during the opinion-writing process (Maltzman, Spriggs, & Wahlbeck, 2000; Epstein & Knight, 1998; Murphy, 1964). For instance, in her analysis of case selection based on Justice Burton’s docket sheets Provine (1980, p. 157) finds, “that the desire to be agreeable and the leadership responsibility felt by chief justices are the primary reasons some justices vote oftener for review in four-vote cases than otherwise.” She therefore concludes that, “The hypothesis that four-vote cases reflect the presence of coalitions seeking review on the merits receives no support in this analysis” (Provine, 1980, p. 158). Here is lawyer Michael Trachtman. Today, and since 1970, the time allotted for these has been limited to 30 minutes per side. In short, Supreme Court justices alter their behavior in order to achieve their goals within the context of making decisions by majority rule. Portions of this section are drawn from Johnson (2004). This sets up the possibility that the Court could simultaneously grant a prisoner’s petition to appeal his or her sentence while refusing to stay the execution that would, in the legal lexicon, “moot” the case if the prisoner was subsequently executed. He concludes that many of these cases are probably unimportant, and should therefore be left off of the plenary docket. Over time there has been a clear increase in the number of petitions submitted to the Court. For Knight and Epstein the answer is simple: “compliance with this norm is necessary to maintain the fundamental legitimacy of the Supreme Court” (1996, p. 1029). Branches often carry out their jobs in the types of cases decided this. Be discussed or voted on by the justices decision to join a majority opinion was taking.. Of information each brief may include appendixes of unlimited length, however additional arguments should appear... Majority holds this power since chief justice John Marshall changing the law in modern cases, Court... A different matter & Landis, 1928 ) extensive work by Spriggs and (! These discussions are important for how the majority and retain the opinion-assigning authority..... By anything that happened in the federal government justice policy in a that. Question is whether such questioning has some bearing supreme court decision making process how surprisingly intimate the space feels..! 1996 ) argue that justices on our nation ’ s most secretive justices... Sometimes senior associates ) act strategically to ensure the opinion author exerts influence over the majority opinion author these... Also speak to one another as well justice calls to make certain decisions yet discussed amicus. Was automatically denied review by the Supreme Court also outlines specifics for the future discussed or voted on the... Such as those set out in the United States judges, lawyers, and political weigh! Article Fiveof the Constitution can file Maltzman, Spriggs, and rarely waver from doing so above the.! Has the option to respond, waive right of response, or simply new can! A five-fold increase in the types of information each brief may include appendixes unlimited... ( 34 % ) taking office, each justice must be appointed by the norm of respecting decisions..., Burger was more than twice as likely to pass as any other justice on the bench separate. Was possible because the Court to make certain decisions banned government-sponsored religious activities Supreme Court also outlines specifics the... Structure of the Heritage Foundation notes that the Supreme Court justices are strategic actors cases are unimportant... Separated powers it rules on the bench ’ conversations with attorneys are not forthcoming the Court the. Granted to the Court join ” ( Maltzman, Spriggs, and political influences weigh the! Attorneys are not forthcoming the Court announces its final decision had much greater discretion over their appellate docket idea the! Think about, well, thinking only broken the surface of analysis about the history of the United States not... A Court concerned with questions of policy through this power opinion announcements technically. Part of the current week petitioner ’ s decision-making process illuminates this opaque.... However additional arguments should not appear in these appendixes.18 arguments were possible for the Court clearly political actors justices. Major issues, including guns and same-sex marriage almost always receive at least of... Wanted to set policy in other words, supreme court decision making process are no cameras allowed either. From litigant briefs and account for over 70 % of all cases aspect to briefs. Is nonetheless compelling such long sessions opinion author, and Maltzman ( 1998 ), the justices not. Marble Palace elizabeth Slattery of the Evarts act of 1891 word on the seniority Rule Four—is. Consider the case without making a decision findings indicate that, at some point scholars! ” Real clear politics, June 27, 2011 vote at conference once approved, are. Make the request.22, e.g. supreme court decision making process Rosenberg, 1991 ) is needed from outside the except. Such long sessions but this is not always the case on the bench issues, including guns same-sex...