Presidents, justices, and deference to administrative action

Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 346-364

  Smith, Joseph L ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35648949013     PISSN: 87566222     EISSN: 14657341     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jleo/ewm025     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Bailey, Michael, Brian Kamoie, and Forrest Maltzman. 2005. "Signals from the Tenth Justice: The Political Role of the Solicitor General in Supreme Court Decision Making," 49 American Journal of Political Science 72-85.
2. Baum, Lawrence. 2003. "The Supreme Court in American Politics," 6 Annual Review of Political Science 161-80.
3. Benesh, Sara C., and Harold J. Spaeth. 2003a. "The Justice-Centered Burger Court Database, 1969-1985 Terms." Archived at The S. Sidney Ulmer Project, http://www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/. Last Accessed April 30, 2007.
4. _. 2003b. "The Justice-Centered Rehnquist Court Database, 1986-2000 Terms." Archived at The S. Sidney Ulmer Project, http://www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/.
5. Benesh, Sara C., and Malia Reddick. 2002. "Overruled: An Event History Analysis of Lower Court Reaction to Supreme Court Alterations of Precedent."" Journal of Politics 64(2): 534-550.
6. Breyer, Stephen G. 1986. "Judicial Review of Questions of Law and Policy." 38 Administrative Law Review 363-396.
7. Canon, Bradley C., and Michel Giles. 1972. "Recurring Litigants: Federal Agencies Before the Supreme Court," 25 Western Political Quarterly 183-91.
8. Cohen, Linda R., and Matthew L. Spitzer. 1996. "Solving the Chevron Puzzle," 57 Law and Contemporary Problems 67-110.
9. _. 1996. "Judicial Deference to Agency Action: A Rational Choice Theory and Empirical Test," 69 Southern California Law Review 431-76.
10. Crowley, Donald W. 1987. "Judicial Review of Administrative Agencies: Does the Type of Agency Matter?," 31 Western Political Quarterly 265-83.
11. Edelman, Paul H., and Suzanna Sherry. 2000. "All or Nothing: Explaining the Size of Supreme Court Majorities." 78 North Carolina Law Review 1225-1249.
12. Epstein, Lee, Andrew D., Martin, Jeffrey A. Segal., and Chad Westerland. 2007 (forthcoming). "The Judicial Common. Space." JOURNAL OF LAW, ECONOMICS, & ORGANIZATION.
13. Handberg, Roger. 1979. "The Supreme Court and Administrative Agencies: 1965-1978," 6 Journal of Contemporary Law .161-76.
14. Humphries, Martha, and Donald Songer. 1999. "Law and Politics in Judicial. Oversight of Federal Administrative Agencies," 61 Journal of Politics 207-20.
15. Jaccard, J. 2001. Interaction effects in logistic regression. Newbury Park: Sage.
16. Johnson, Charles A. 1987. "Law, Politics, and Judicial Decision Making: Lower Federal. Court Uses of Supreme Court Decisions," 21 Law & Society Review 325-40.
17. Kagan, Elena. 2001. "Presidential Administration," 114 Harvard Law Review 2245-383.
18. McCarty, Nolan, and Rose Razaghian. 1999. "Advice and Consent: Senate Responses to Executive Branch Nominations 1885-1996," 43 American Journal of Political Science 1122-1143.
19. Mecham, Leonidas Ralph. 2003. Judicial Business of the United States, http://www.uscourts.gov/ judbus2003/appendices/b3.pdf. Accessed April 30, 2007.
20. Moe, Terry M. 2003. "The Presidency and the Bureaucracy: The Presidential Advantage," in M. Nelson, ed., The Presidency and the Political System. Washington: CQ Press 425-457.
21. Murphy, Walter F. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy Chicago: Chicago University Press.
22. Pritchett, C. Herman, 1941. "Divisions of Opinion Among Justices of the U. S. Supreme Court, 1939-1941," 35 American Political Science Review 890-8.
23. Poole, Keith T., and Howard Rosenthal, 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
24. Schuck, Peter H., and E. Donald Elliott. 1990. "To the Chevron Station: An Empirical Study of Federal Administrative Law," 1990 Duke Law Journal 984-1077.
25. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. _. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Segal, Jeffrey A. .1997. "Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts." 91 The American Political Science Review 1225-1249.
28. Shapiro, Sidney A., and Richard E. Levy. 1995. "Judicial Incentives and Indeterminacy in Substantive Review of Administrative Decisions." 44 Duke Law Journal, No. 6, Twenty-Sixth Annual Administrative Law Issue pp. 1051-1080
29. Sheehan, Reginald S. 1990. "Administrative Agency and the Court: A Reexamination of the Impact of Agency Type on. Decisional Outcomes," 43 Western Political Quarterly 875-85.
30. _. 1992. "Federal Agencies and the Supreme Court: An Analysis of Litigation Outcomes, 1953-1988," 20 American Politics Quarterly 478-500.
31. Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1992. "Congress Is a 'They', Not an 'It': Legislative Intent as Oxymoron," 12 International Review of Law and Economics 239-56.
32. Smith, Joseph L., and Emerson H. Tiller. 2002. "The Strategy of Judging: Evidence from Administrative Law," 31 Journal of Legal Studies 61-82.
33. Songer, Donald R., Jeffrey A. Segal, and Charles Cameron. 1994. "The Hierarchy of Justice: Testing a Principle-Agent Model, of Supreme Court-Circuit Court Interactions," 38 American Journal of Political Science 673-97.
34. Spaeth, Harold J., and Stuart Teger. 1982. "Activism and Restraint: A Cloak for the Justices' Policy Preferences," in Halpern and Lamb, eds., Supreme Court Activism and Restraint, 277-302. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
35. Stephenson, Mathew C. 2004. "Mixed Signals: Reconsidering the Political Economy of Judicial Deference to Administrative Agencies," 56 Administrative Law Review 657.
36. Tanenhaus, Joseph. 1960. "Supreme Court Attitudes toward Administrative Agencies," 22 Journal of Politics 502-24.
37. Wood, B. Dan, and Richard W. Waterman. 1991. "The Dynamics of Political Control of the Bureaucracy," 85 American Political Science Review 801-28.