The Supreme Court and National Policy Making

American Political Science Review

Volumn 70, Issue 1, 1976, Pages 50-63

  Casper, Jonathan D ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922953813     PISSN: 00030554     EISSN: 15375943     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0003055400263983     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Dahl Robert A., “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker,” Journal of Public Law, 6 (Fall, 1957), 279-295. Dahl integrated and somewhat revised this article as a chapter in two editions of his American government text. See Dahl Robert A., Pluralist Democracy in the United States (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1967), chapter 6; in the 1972 edition, called Democracy in the United States, see chapter 16. Because the original is the clearest and most widely read version of his argument, I shall focus upon it here.
2. Dahl, p. 282.
3. Ibid., pp. 285-86.
4. Ibid., p. 291.
5. Dahl., pp. 293, 294.
6. Ibid., p. 294.
7. For a discussion of the role of the Supreme Court during the 1950s, see Murphy Walter F., Congress and the Court (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962); and Casper Jonathan D., The Politics of Civil Liberties (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), chapter II.
8. U.S. 112(1970).
9. Washington v. Legrant, 394 U. S. 618 (1969).
10. Grisham v. Hagan, 361 U. S. 278 (1960); McElroy v. Guargliardo, 361 U. S. 281 (1960); Kinsella v. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234(1960).
11. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U. S. 301 (1965).
12. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86 (1958); Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144 (1963); Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U. S. 163(1964).
13. Aplheker v. Sec. of State, 378 U. S. 500 (1964); U. S. v. Brown, 381 U. S. 437 (1965); Albertson v. SACB, 382 U. S. 70 (1965); Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U. S. 253 (1967); U. S. v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258(1967).
14. U. S. V. Romano, 3S2 U. S. 136 (1965); Marchetti v. U. S., 390 U. S. 39 (1968); Grosso v. V. S. 390 U. S. 62 (1968); Haynes v. U. S., 390 U. S. 85 (1968); U. S. v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570(1968); Leary v. U. S., 395 U. S. 6(1969); U. S. v. Covington, 395 U. S. 57 (1969).
15. Schact v. U. S. 398 U. S. 58 (1970); Chief of Police v. J. Rankin Brigade, 409 U. S. 972 (1972).
16. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Murry, 413 U. S. 508 (1973); U. S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528 (1973).
17. Six of the total of 28 cases in which federal legislation was declared unconstitutional in the 1958-74 period were discussed in the text above (see notes 8-11); 19 of the cases are cited in notes 12-16; the remaining three cases are as follows: Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U. S. 410 (1971) holding unconstitutional a procedure by which Postmaster General was authorized to deal with allegedly obscene material sent through the mails; Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672 (1971) declaring unconstitutional on Establishment ground s a section of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963; and Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677 (1973) holding unconstitutional a form of discrimination against wome n members of the armed forces in eligibility for quarters’ allowances and medical benefits for dependents.
18. Dahl's “ruling elite model” article, published in 1958, argues that influence can only be measured effectively in such situations. See “A Critique of the Ruling Elite Model,“American Political Science Review 52 (06, 1958), 463-6910.2307/1952327S0003055400073044.
19. Dahl, “Decision-Making in a Democracy,” p. 282.
20. Ibid., p. 287.
21. Ibid., p. 292, emphasis added.
22. The summary of the Supreme Court's work published each fall in the Harvard Law Review provides a useful account of the Court's business. In the 1972 term, for example, of 164 cases decided with full opinions, 69 involved the federal government as a party; of course many of these cases involving the federal government did not involve a challenge to constitutionality, but issues of administrative procedure, statutory construction, etc. See Note, “The Supreme Court, 1972 term,” Harvard Law Review, 87 (11, 1973), 307-09.
23. U.S. 497(1956).
24. U.S.C. s. 3231.
25. Murphy, especially chapters 7, 9.
26. U. S. V. Seeger, 380 U. S. 163 (1965); Welsh v. U. S. 398 U. S. 333 (1970).
27. Oeslereich v. Sel. Service Board, 393 U. S. 233 (1968); Breen v. Sel. Service Board, 396 U. S. 460 (1970).
28. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969).
29. U.S. v. U. S. District Court, 407 U. S. 297 (1972).
30. King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309 (1968).
31. Columbia Broadcasting System v. DNC, 412 U. S. 94 (1973).
32. Dall, 419(1793).
33. Wheat 316(1819).
34. Wheat 1 (1824).
35. How. 299 (1852).
36. U.S. 186(1962).
37. U.S. 533(1964).
38. Mahan v. Howell, 410 U. S. 315 (1973); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U. S. 735 (1973).
39. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 (1962); Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963).
40. See, for example, Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971); Levitt v. Committee for Public Education, 413 U. S. 472(1973); Sloan v. Lemon, 413 U. S. 825 (1973); Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U. S. 756 (1973).
41. For example, Roth v. U. S., 354 U. S. 476 (1957); Manual Enterprises v. Day, 370 U. S. 478 (1962); Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184 (1964); Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413 (1966); Ginzburg v. U. S., 383 U. S. 463 (1966); Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502 (1966).
42. E.g., Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973); but also see Jenkins v. Georgia, 41 L. Ed. 2d. 642 (1974).
43. E.g., Brown v. Bd. of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954); Holmes v. Atlanta, 350 U. S. 879 (1955); Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U. S. 454 (1960); Turner v. Memphis, 369 U. S. 762 (1962); Watson v. Memphis, 373 U. S. 526 (1963); Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U. S. 61 (1963); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229 (1963); Robinson v. Florida, 378 Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U. S. 131 (1966).
44. For a useful review of the Warren Court's decisions dealing with criminal procedure, see Pye A. Kenneth, “The Warren Court and Criminal Procedure, “in The Warren Court, ed. Sayler Richard H. et al. (New York: Chelsea House, 1969), pp. 58-77.
45. E.g., Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973); Jenkins v. Georgia, 41 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974).
46. E.g., Mahan v. Howell, 410 U. S. 315 (1973); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U. S. 735 (1973).
47. E.g., Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 1 (1971); North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U. S. 25 (1970): U. S. v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973); U. S. v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338 (1974).
48. Murphy, chapter 9.
49. Dahl, “A Critique of the Ruling Elite Model,” p. 464.
50. I shall not discuss here the problem of taking account of “anticipated reactions” in discussing the relative influence of the Court in the policy-making process. It seems plausible to argue, though, that just as the Court in its decisions may take account of the breadth and intensity of support for various policies, members of Congress may take into account their predictions of potential rulings by the Court in making choices about what legislation to pass. For a discussion of the role of constitutional considerations in the legislative decision-making process, see Morgan Donald G., Congress and the Constitution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966), and Brest Paul, “The Conscientious Legislator's Guide to Constitutional Interpretation,” Stanford Law Review, 27 (02, 1975), 585-601 10.2307/1228328.
51. Much of Dahl's work is consistent with this view and has added to our understanding ofthe ways in which these processes operate. Yet in the article under consideration here, a narrower view of the nature of the policy-making process emerges from the fashion in which he formulates the question and gathers his data.