The ability of US Supreme Court justices to dissent from the majority, to formally register and explain their belief that a case has been wrongly decided, represents a time-honored tradition of perhaps the most august American institution. Yet the impact of these dissents, which allow justices to engage in a dialogue over law and policy, has seldom, if ever, been the focus of dedicated study. Analyzing the influence of past dissents on later Supreme Court majority opinions, this book presents the first comprehensive study of the effects of dissenting opinions and illuminates which types of dissents successfully influence legal and policy debates, which ones fail to make a difference, and why.
Drawing on the private papers of the justices and original data, this book demonstrates that court majorities engage with dissents posing a particular threat to their opinions, and that they can be persuaded by thoughtful and careful dissenting arguments.
The U.S. Supreme Court typically rules on cases that present complex legal questions. Given the challenging nature of its cases and the popular view that the Court is divided along ideological lines, it's commonly assumed that the Court routinely hands down equally-divided decisions. Yet the justices actually issue unanimous decisions in approximately one third of the cases they decide.
Drawing on data from the U.S. Supreme Court database, internal court documents, and the justices' private papers, The Puzzle of Unanimity provides the first comprehensive account of how the Court reaches consensus. Pamela Corley, Amy Steigerwalt, and Artemus Ward propose and empirically test a theory of consensus; they find consensus is a function of multiple, concurrently-operating forces that cannot be fully accounted for by ideological attitudes. In this thorough investigation, the authors conclude that consensus is a function of the level of legal certainty and its ability to constrain justices' ideological preferences.
When justices write or join a concurring opinion, they demonstrate their preferences over substantive legal rules. Concurrences provide a way for justices to express their views about the law, to engage in a dialogue of law with each other, the legal community, the public, and Congress. This important study is the first systematic examination of the content of Supreme Court concurrences. While previous work on Supreme Court decision making focuses solely on the outcome of cases, Pamela C. Corley tackles the content of Supreme Court concurring opinions to show the reasoning behind each justice’s decision. Using both qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis, Concurring Opinion Writing on the U.S. Supreme Court offers a rich and detailed portrait of judicial decision making by studying the process of opinion writing and the formation of legal doctrine through the unique lens of concurrences.
"The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the U.S. Supreme Court" (with Paul M. Collins, Jr. and Jesse Hamner). Law & Society Review 49(4): 917-944 (December 2015).
“Me Too? An Investigation of Repetition in U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Curiae Briefs” (with Paul M. Collins, Jr. and Jesse Hamner). Judicature 97(5): 228-234 (March/April 2014).
“The (Dis)Advantage of Certainty: The Importance of Certainty in Language” (with Justin Wedeking). Law & Society Review 48(1): 35-62 (March 2014).
“Judicial Independence: Evidence from a Natural Experiment” (with Scott Graves and Robert M. Howard). Law and Policy 36(1): 68-90 (January 2014).
“National Policy Preferences and Judicial Review of State Statutes at the United States Supreme Court” (with Stefanie A. Lindquist). Publius: The Journal of Federalism 43(2): 151-178 (Spring 2013).
“Revisiting the Roosevelt Court: The Critical Juncture from Consensus to Dissensus” (with Amy Steigerwalt and Artemus Ward). The Journal of Supreme Court History (March 2013). “The Multi-Stage Process of Judicial Review: Facial and As-Applied Constitutional Challenges to Legislation before the U.S. Supreme Court” (with Stefanie A. Lindquist). The Journal of Legal Studies 40(2): 467-502 (June 2011).
“Lower Court Influence on U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Content” (with Paul M. Collins, Jr. and Bryan Calvin). The Journal of Politics 73(1): 31-44 (January 2011).
“Extreme Dissensus: Explaining Plurality Decisions on the United States Supreme Court” (with Udi Sommer, Amy Steigerwalt, and Artemus Ward). The Justice System Journal 31(2): 180-200 (November 2010).
“Uncertain Precedent: Circuit Court Responses to Supreme Court Plurality Opinions.” American Politics Research 37(1): 30-49 (January 2009).
“The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Influence of Parties’ Briefs.” Political Research Quarterly 61(3): 468-478 (September 2008).
“Bargaining and Accommodation on the United States Supreme Court: Insight from Justice Blackmun.” Judicature 90(4): 157-165 (January-February 2007).
“Avoiding Advice and Consent: Recess Appointments and Presidential Power.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 36(4): 670-680 (December 2006).
“The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Use of the Federalist Papers” (with Robert M. Howard and David C. Nixon). Political Research Quarterly 58(2): 329-340 (June 2005).