Towards an integrated model of the U.S. Supreme court's federalism decision making

Publius: The Journal of Federalism

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 505-531

  Collins, Paul M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 44849106146     PISSN: 00485950     EISSN: 17477107     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/publius/pjm019     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Abernathy, Charles F. 1996. Federalism and anti-federalism as civil rights tools. Howard Law Journal 39 (Spring): 615-632.
2. Ai, Chunrong, and Edward C. Norton. 2003. Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters 80 (1): 123-129.
3. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001).
4. Baybeck, Brady, and William Lowry. 2000. Federalism outcomes and ideological preferences: The U.S. Supreme Court and preemption cases. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 30 (3): 73-97.
5. Bednar, Jenna, and William N. Eskridge Jr. 1995. Steadying the Court's "unsteady path": A theory of judicial enforcement of federalism. Southern California Law Review 68 (6): 1447-1491.
6. Brambor, Thomas, William R. Clark, and Matt Golder. 2006. Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis 14 (1): 63-82.
7. Brickey, Kathleen F. 1996. Crime control and the commerce clause: Life after Lopez. Case Western Reserve Law Review 46 (Spring): 801-843.
8. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
9. Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996).
10. Chen, Paul. 2003. The institutional sources of state success in federalism litigation before the Supreme Court. Law and Policy 25 (4): 455-472.
11. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway v. Schwalb, 493 U.S. 40 (1989).
12. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).
13. Cohen, Linda R., and Matthew L. Spitzer. 2000. The government litigant advantage: Implications for the law. Florida State University Law Review 28 (Fall): 391-425.
14. Colker, Ruth, and James J. Brudney. 2001. Dissing congress. Michigan Law Review 100 (October): 80-144.
15. Colker, Ruth, and Kevin M. Scott. 2002. Dissing states?: Invalidation of state action during the Rehnquist era. Virginia Law Review 88 (6): 1301-1386.
16. College Savings Bank v. Florida, 527 U.S. 666 (1999).
17. Collins, Paul M. Jr. 2004. Friends of the Court: Examining the influence of amicus curiae participation in U.S. Supreme Court litigation. Law and Society Review 38 (4): 807-832.
18. Cross, Frank B. 1999. Realism about federalism. New York University Law Review 74 (5): 1304-1335.
19. Cross, Frank B., and Emerson Tiller. 2000. The three faces of federalism: An empirical assessment of Supreme Court federalism jurisprudence. Southern California Law Review 73 (4): 741-771.
20. CTS Corporation v. Dynamics Corporation, 481 U.S. 69 (1987).
21. Dahl, Robert A. 1957. Decision-making in a democracy: The Supreme Court as a national policy-maker. Journal of Public Law 6 (Fall): 279-295.
22. Davis, Sue. 1992. Rehnquist and state courts: Federalism revisited. Western Political Quarterly 45 (3): 773-782.
23. Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 1999. Mapping out the strategic terrain: The informational role of amici curiae. In Supreme Court decision making: New institutionalist approaches, eds. C. Clayton, and H. Gillman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24. Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2000. Measuring issue salience. American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 66-83.
25. Eskridge, William N. Jr, and John Ferejohn. 1994. The elastic commerce clause: A political theory of American federalism. Vanderbilt Law Review 47 (5): 1355-1400.
26. Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003).
27. Fallon, Richard H. Jr. 2002. The "conservative" paths of the Rehnquist Court's federalism decisions. University of Chicago Law Review 69 (2): 429-494.
28. Friedman, Barry. 1997. Valuing federalism. Minnesota Law Review 82 (2): 317-412.
29. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
30. Greenhouse, Linda. 2001. Will the Court reassert national authority? New York Times, September 30, sec. 4.
31. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991).
32. Heberlig, Eric, and Rorie Spill. 2000. Congress at court: Members of congress as amicus curiae. Southeastern Political Review 28 (2): 189-212.
33. Holman, J. Blanding IV. 1995. After United States v. Lopez: Can the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act survive commerce clause attack? Virginia Environmental Law Journal 15 (Fall): 139-211.
34. Homan, Molly E. 1995. United States v. Lopez: The Supreme Court guns down the commerce clause. University of Denver Law Review 73 (1): 237-292.
35. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990).
36. Johnson, Timothy R., Paul J. Wahlbeck, and James F. Spriggs II. 2006. The influence of oral arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 100 (1): 99-113.
37. Kearney, Joseph D., and Thomas W. Merrill. 2000. The influence of amicus curiae briefs on the Supreme Court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148 (3): 743-855.
38. 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 (4): 1008-1025.
39. Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000).
40. King, Gary. 1998. Unifying Political Methodology: The Likelihood Theory of Statistical Inference. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
41. Kissam, Philip C. 2006. Constitutional theory and ideological factors: Three nineteenth-century justices. Kansas Law Review 54 (3): 751-802.
42. Kritzer, Herbert M., and Mark J. Richards. 2003. Jurisprudential regimes and Supreme Court decisionmaking: The Lemon regime and Establishment Clause cases. Law and Society Review 37 (4): 827-840.
43. _. 2005. The influence of law in the Supreme Court's search-and-seizure jurisprudence. American Politics Research 33 (1): 33-55.
44. Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001).
45. Martin, Andrew D., and Kevin M. Quinn. 2002. Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999. Political Analysis 10 (2): 134-153.
46. McLauchlan, Judithanne Scourfield. 2005. Congressional participation as amicus curiae before the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
47. Mendelson, Wallace. 1964. The untroubled world of jurimetrics. Journal of Politics 26 (4): 914-922.
48. Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000).
49. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).
50. Northwest Central v. State Corporation Commission, 489 U.S. 493 (1988).
51. O'Connor, Karen, and Lee Epstein. 1989. Public Interest Law Groups: Institutional Profiles. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
52. Owens, Ryan J., and Lee Epstein. 2005. Amici curiae during the Rehnquist years. Judicature 89 (3): 127-133.
53. Perry, H. W. Jr. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
54. _. 2005. Federalism: The counterrevolution that was, wasn't, was Law and Courts 15 (1): 28-31.
55. Pickerill, J. Mitchell. 2003. Leveraging federalism: The real meaning of the Rehnquist Court's federalism jurisprudence for states. Albany Law Review 66 (3): 823-833.
56. Pickerill, J. Mitchell, and Cornell W. Clayton. 2004. The Rehnquist Court and the political dynamics of federalism. Perspectives on Politics 2 (2): 233-248.
57. Richards, Mark J., and Herbert M. Kritzer. 2002. Jurisprudential regimes in Supreme Court decision making. American Political Science Review 96 (2): 305-320.
58. Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (1987).
59. Salokar, Rebecca Mae. 1992. The Solicitor General: The Politics of Law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
60. Schenker, Carl R. Jr. 1982. Reading Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Catholic University Law Review 31 (3): 487-503.
61. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
62. Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996).
63. Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005).
64. Solberg, Rorie Spill, and Stefanie A. Lindquist. 2006. Activism, ideology, and federalism: Judicial behavior in constitutional challenges before the Rehnquist Court, 1986-2000. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 3 (2): 237-261.
65. Solimine, Michael E. 2002. Judicial federalism after Bush v. Gore: Some observations. Justice System Journal 23 (1): 45-55.
66. Songer, Donald R., and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1993. Interest group success in the courts: Amicus participation in the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly 46 (2): 339-354.
67. Spaeth, Harold J. 1985. Burger Court review of state court civil liberties decisions. Judicature (February-March): 285-291.
68. _. 2006. The Original U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Database. East Lansing, MI: Department of Political Science, Michigan State University. Available at http:// www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/sctdata.htm.
69. St Laurent, Andrew. 1997. Reconstituting United States v. Lopez: Another look at federal criminal law. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 31 (Fall): 61-117.
70. Tate, C. Neal. 1981. Personal attribute models of the voting behavior of U.S. Supreme Court justices: Liberalism in civil liberties and economics decisions, 1946-1978. American Political Science Review 75 (2): 355-367.
71. Tiller, Emerson H. 1995. Putting politics into the positive theory of federalism: A comment on Bednar and Eskridge. Southern California Law Review 68 (6): 1493-1502.
72. Unah, Isaac, and Ange-Marie Hancock. 2006. U.S. Supreme Court decision making, case salience, and the attitudinal model. Law and Policy 28 (3): 295-320.
73. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
74. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
75. Utah Division of Lands v. United States, 482 U.S. 193 (1987).
76. Verizon v. Public Service Commission, 535 U.S. 635 (2002).
77. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).
78. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989).
79. Wise, Charles, and Rosemary O'Leary. 1992. Is federalism dead or alive in the Supreme Court? Implications for public administrators. Public Administration Review 52 (6): 559-572.
80. Young, Ernest A. 2005. Just blowing smoke? Politics, doctrine, and the federalist revival after Gonzales v. Raich. Supreme Court Review 2005 (1): 1-50.