The primary purpose of this course is to expose you to the diverse scholarship on the American judiciary.  Because we could easily spend two or even three semesters covering this material, the syllabus is designed to highlight several of the major themes of the subfield while exposing you to as much of the breadth of the literature as possible.  In addition to substance, this course emphasizes professionalization.  The several assignments are designed to teach you skills that are critical to being a productive political scientist, regardless of your primary field of interest.

Required Reading

There are a number of books and articles that are required for this course.  The books are listed below in alphabetical order and can be purchased at the AU bookstore or found on reserve at Bender Library.  The articles are listed in the Course Outline and can be found either on JSTOR, LexisNexis, at the library, or on e-reserves.

Baum, Lawrence. 1997. The Puzzle of Judicial Behavior. (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press).  [Hereafter, Baum 1997]

Clayton, Cornell W. and Howard Gillman, ed. 1999.  Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).  [Hereafter, Clayton and Gillman 1999]

Epstein, Lee and Jack Knight. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press).  [Hereafter, Epstein and Knight 1998]

Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck.  2000.  Crafting Law on the Supreme Court.  (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press).  [Hereafter, Maltzman, Spriggs and Wahlbeck 2000]

Rosenberg, Gerald. 1991.  The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change?  (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.).  [Hereafter, Rosenberg 1991]

Segal, Jeffrey A. and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. (New York, NY:  Cambridge University Press). [Hereafter, Segal and Spaeth 2002] 

There are two books that are excellent resources for those of you unfamiliar with the judiciary.  Additionally, there are a multitude of articles that are not included on this syllabus.  I have not listed them here, but if you are interested in further reading, please let me know and I will help you put together a reading list.  

Baum, Lawrence. 2002. American Courts: Process and Policy. 5th edition. (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company).  [Hereafter Baum 2002]

Blackboard

I will rely on Blackboard to post announcements and to receive and distribute assignments.  You must have access to and know how to use Blackboard.  Please check Blackboard regularly.

Course Requirements

1. Weekly Participation. 10%.  Everyone is required to participate actively but constructively in class each and every week.  This means that you should keep up with the reading, think thoughtfully about the research, ask relevant questions, and make thoughtful comments.  I emphasize “thoughtful” and “relevant.” Our semester is going to be very busy, with a lot of material for us to read and discuss.  I do not want to chill the course of our discussion, but I also want us to stay as focused as possible.  This is not to say that there won’t be opportunity to indulge in tangents; it is to say, however, that if we go too far afield, I will rein us in.  If this means cutting off our discussion, I apologize in advance and encourage you to come to office hours to pursue the related topics about which you would like to talk. 
   

2. Weekly Discussion Leadership and Written Synthesis.  15%.  Each week two students will be responsible for reviewing the reading and leading class discussion.  For your discussion week, you are to email a synthesis of the week’s readings (no more than 4 pages total, double spaced) to ME by Wednesday at 10p.  Leaders will also email at least two questions about the week’s readings to the CLASS by this same time. These will be used to stimulate class discussion.  The schedule will follow when enrollment is firm.
   
   The synthesis of the readings should focus on themes of substance, purpose, methodology, or whatever else you think ties the research together.  Importantly, you should not discuss one article at a time; they should be considered together.  The synthesis should also be critically written.  This does not mean that you should launch into a full assault of the research, but rather that you should consider the work thoughtfully and analytically.  The two questions that you ask may be of a variety of sorts, among them substantive questions that you have about the material, concerns you have about how the research was carried out, or research questions that you think would make interesting or necessary follow up studies. 
   

3. Weekly Research Questions.  15%.  During the weeks when you are NOT a discussion leader, you will be responsible for emailing the CLASS at least one research question related to that week’s topic by Wednesday at 10p. Research questions are the heart of our scholarship and are the critical starting point of any successful research project.  They are also one of the most difficult elements of scholarship, requiring a great deal of practice.  You will get a lot of practice this semester!  While there is a lot of flexibility in how you approach a research question, there are a couple of elements that are required for this class:  (1) it should not be too big (e.g., how democratic are federal courts?); (2) it should not be factual (e.g., how many judges are there?); (3) it should be compelling; you should be able to articulate why it’s an important question to ask; (4) it must be articulated in the form of a question (in other words, there should be a question mark at the end)!
   

4. Research Paper, Presentation, Discussion.   40%, 10%, 10%, respectively.  We will have a mini-conference during finals week.  Your research papers will be due on December 5.  Then, on December 11 (our final exam period), you will present your own research and discuss one of your classmate’s research.  More details about this assignment will be forthcoming.

Grading Policy

You will earn letter grades on your assignments according to a standard 100% scale (A=95%, A-=92%, B+=88, etc.).  I am extremely reluctant to give Incompletes and will do so only under extreme conditions and after lengthy and thorough consultation. 

Grading Written Assignments

It should go without saying that your written assignments will be evaluated not only for substance, but also for form.  You should attend to grammar and structure, as well as substantive organization and coherence.

Missed Assignments

You are expected to turn in assignments at the designated time through the designated process.  Make-ups and extensions will be allowed only for excused absences, which include the death of an immediate family member (parent or sibling), personal illness, a scheduled University event (for athletes or those involved in clubs that may take them off campus), or a major religious holiday that is not formally recognized by the University’s calendar (see http://www.american.edu/academic.depts/provost for the Provost’s announcement of these holidays).  You MUST provide written documentation for these absences.  If you do not meet these conditions, you will receive a zero for the assignment. If you do meet these conditions, you will be able to make up the assignment as close to the original due date as possible (which may be before the due date if the nature of the absence allows).  IMPORTANT: You should discuss make up assignments with me as soon as you are aware of them in person at my office (or by email if you are absolutely unable to get to my office).

Late Assignments

Assignments submitted after the time and date at which they are due, and that are NOT accompanied by an acceptable excuse (as described above) will be addressed as follows. For every 24 hour period after the date and time that the assignment is due, the grade received for the assignment will be decreased by two (2) parts of a grade. The 24 hour periods include weekends. For example, if you turn in an A quality assignment on Friday before 11:20a, after it was due on Wednesday at 11:20a, then the assignment will be 2 days late and you will earn a B- on that assignment. If you turn in a B quality paper at that same time, you will earn a C-. 

You may submit a late assignment in only one of two ways: (1) directly into my hands, or (2) at the Department of Government office, where it must be time and date stamped (be aware of the office’s hours). 

Cheating and Plagiarism

Neither cheating nor plagiarism will be tolerated in this course.  The fullest penalty allowed by the University will be sought if any student is found to be in violation of these rules on assignments for this course.  See the University’s policy at http://www.american.edu/american/registrar/AcademicReg/New/reg80.html.

Comprehensive Exams

If you are considering taking a Judicial comp or would simply like additional practice for comps, please let me know and I will be happy to guide you in this endeavor.

Course Outline and Reading Assignments (dates are approximate)

Week 1, 8/28    Diascro at American Political Science Association: Read Baum 2002 and O’Brien 2002, if necessary, and prep for 9/4

Week 2 9/4            The Empirical Study of Law and Courts: An Overview of Approaches

Baum 1997.  Chapter 1.

Clayton and Gillman 1999.  Pp. 3-7, Chapter 1.

Burns, Walter. 1953. “Buck v. Bell: Due Process of Law?” 6 WPQ 762-775.  [WPQ is now PRQ] [JSTOR]

Goldstein, Leslie F. 1986. “Popular Sovereignty, the Origins of Judicial Review, and the Revival of Unwritten Law.” 48 JOP 51-71. [JSTOR]

Scheb, John M. II, Thomas D. Ungs, and Allison L. Hayes. 1989. “Judicial Role Orientations, Attitudes and Decision Making: A Research Note.” 42 WPQ 427-435. [JSTOR]

Wahlbeck, Paul J. 1997. “The Life of the Law: Judicial Politics and Legal Change.” 59 JOP 778-802.  [JSTOR]         

Other Reading

Smith, Rogers M. 1988. “Political Jurisprudence, The “New Institutionalism,” and the Future of Public Law.”  82 APSR 89-108.

O’Neill, Timothy. 1981. “The Language of Equality in Constitutional Order.” 75 APSR 626-635.

Binion, Gayle. 1991. “Toward a Feminist Regrouping of Constitutional Law.” 72 SSQ 207-220.  

Week 3, 9/11            The Breadth of Substance in the Study of Law and Courts: A Brief Tangent

Zemans, Frances K. 1983. “Legal Mobilization: The Neglected Role of the Law in the Political System.” 77 APSR 690-703. [JSTOR]

Stewart, Joseph Jr. and James F. Sheffield, Jr. 1987. “Does Interest Group Litigation Matter? The Case of Black Political Mobilization in Mississippi.” 49 JOP 780-797.  [JSTOR]

Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead: Speculation on the Limits of Legal Change.” 9 Law and Society Review 95-160.  [Bender] (focus on pp. 95-135; don’t get bogged down in the footnotes)

Eisenstein, James, Roy B. Flemming, and Peter F. Nardulli. 1988. The Contours of Justice: Communities and Their Courts. (Boston, MA: Little Brown and Co.).  Chapter 4.

Unah, Isaac and John C. Boger. 2002.  “Modeling Capital Punishment as a Process: Race, Institutional Rules and Politics of Criminalization in the New South.”  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, 2002.

Other Reading

Galanter, Marc.  1983. “Legal Mobilization: The Neglected Role of the Law in the Political System.” 77 APSR 690-703.

Felstiner, William, Richard L. Abel, and Austin Sarat. 1981. “The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming and Claiming.” 15 LSR 631-654.

Grossman, Joel B. et al. 1982. “Dimensions of Institutional Participation: Who Uses the Courts and How?” 44 JOP 86-114.

Week 4, 9/18            Supreme Court Decision Making: The Attitudinal Model

Baum, Chapter 2.

Pritchett, C. Herman. 1948.  “The Roosevelt Court: Votes and Values.” 42 APSR 53-67.

Segal and Spaeth 2002. Chapters 2, 3, pp. 279-287, and pp. 312-326.

Epstein, Lee, Valerie Hoekstra, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Harold J. Spaeth. 1998. “Do Political Preferences Change? A Longitudinal  Study of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” 60 JOP 801-818. [JSTOR]

Benesh, Sara C. 2003.  “Harold J. Spaeth: The Supreme Court Computer.” In The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior, ed. Nancy Maveety. (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press) (on reserve).

Other Readings

Richards, Mark J. and Herbert M. Kritzer. 2002. “Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making.” 96 APSR 305-320.

Segal and Spaeth 2002. Pp. 326-356.

Segal, Jeffrey and Albert Cover. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” 83 APSR 557-565.

Week 5, 9/25            Supreme Court Decision Making:  The Legal Model 

Baum, Chapter 3.

Segal and Spaeth 2002. Pp. 288-311.

George, Tracey E. and Lee Epstein. 1992. “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making.” 86 APSR 323-337. [JSTOR]

Segal, Jeffrey A. and Harold J. Spaeth. 1996. “The Influence of Stare Decisis on the Votes of United States Supreme Court Justices.” 40 AJPS 971-1003. [JSTOR]

Songer, Donald R. and Stefanie A. Lindquist. 1996. “Not the Whole Story: The Impact of Justices’ Values on Supreme Court Decision Making.”  40 AJPS 1049-1063. [JSTOR]

  Other Reading

Kahn, Ronald. 1999. “Institutional Norms and Supreme Court Decision-Making: The Rehnquist Court on Privacy and Religion.” In Clayton and Gillman 1999.

Brenner, Saul and Marc Stier. 1996. “Retesting Segal and Spaeth’s Stare Decisis Model.” 40 AJPS 1036-1048.

Wahlbeck, Paul J. 1998. “The Development of a Legal Rule: The Federal Common Law of Public Nuisance.” 32 LSR 613-637.

Week 6, 10/2            Supreme Court Decision Making: Internal Strategy Considerations and Leadership

Epstein and Knight. 1998.  Chapters 1, 3, and 4.

Baum 1997.  Chapter 4

Davis, Sue. 1999.  “The Chief Justice and Judicial Decision Making: The Institutional Basis for Leadership on the Supreme Court.” In Clayton and Gillman 1999.

Maltzman, Spriggs, and Wahlbeck 2000.  All.

Other Reading

Segal and Spaeth 2002. Chapter 9.

Slotnick, Elliot E. 1979. “Who Speaks for the Court? Majority Opinion Assignment from Taft to Burger.” 23 AJPS 60-77.

Walker, Thomas, Lee Epstein, and William J. Dixon. 1988. “On the Mysterious Demise of Consensual Norms in the U.S. Supreme Court.” 50 JOP 361-389.

Melone, Albert P. 1990. “Revisiting the Freshman Effect Hypothesis: The First Two Terms of Justice Anthony Kennedy.” 74 Judicature 6-13.

Week 7, 10/9    Supreme Court Decision Making: External Strategic Considerations and Other External Influences

Dahl, Robert A. 1957. “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker.” 6 Journal of Public Law 279-95. [JSTOR]

Casper, Jonathan D. 1976. “The Supreme Court and National Policy Making.” 70 APSR 50-63. [JSTOR]

Epstein and Knight. 1998. Chapter 5

Caldeira, Gregory A. and John R. Wright. 1990. “Amici Curiae Before the Supreme Court: Who Participates, When and How Much?” 52 JOP 782-806. [JSTOR]

Hausegger, Lori and Lawrence Baum. 1999. “Inviting Congressional Action: A Study of Supreme Court Motivations in Statutory Interpretation.” 43 AJPS 162-185 [JSTOR]  

Other Reading

Segal and Spaeth 2002. Pp. 326-356.

Caldeira, Gregory A. and John R. Wright. 1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.” 82 APSR 1109-1127. [JSTOR]

Sheehan, Reginald, William Mishler, and Donald Songer. 1992. “Ideology, Status and the Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court.” 86 APSR 464-471.

Week 8, 10/16            Supreme Court Selection

Baum, Lawrence. 1999. “Recruitment and the Motivations of Supreme Court Justices.” In Clayton and Gillman 1999.

Segal and Spaeth 1993. Chapter 4.

Maltese, John A. “Confirmation Gridlock: The Federal Judicial Appointments Process Under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.” 5 J. App. Practice & Process 1-28.  [LN]

Caldeira, Gregory A. and John R. Wright. 1998. “Lobbying for Justice: Organized Interests, Supreme Court Nominations, and the United States Senate.” 42 AJPS 499-523. [JSTOR]

Moraski, Bryon J. and Charles R. Shipan. 1999. “The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations: A Theory of Institutional Constraints and Choices.” 43 AJPS 1069-1095. [JSTOR]

Other Reading

Segal and Spaeth 2002. Chapter 5.

Goldman, Sheldon. 1995. “Judicial Selection Under Clinton: A Midterm Examination.” 78 Judicature 276-282.

Flemming, Roy. B., Michael C. MacLeod, and Jeffrey Talbert. 1998. “Witnesses at the Confirmations?  The Appearance of Organized Interests at Senate Hearings on Federal Judicial Appointments, 1945-1992.” 51 PRQ 617-631.  

Week 9, 10/23            Supreme Court Agenda Setting

Segal and Spaeth 1993. Chapter 6.

Epp, Charles R. 1999. “External Pressure and the Supreme Court’s Agenda.” In Clayton and Gillman 1999.

McGuire, Kevin T. and Barbara Palmer. 1995. “Issue Fluidity on the U.S. Supreme Court.” 89 APSR 691-702. [JSTOR]

Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Timothy Johnson. 1996. “The Claim of Issue Creation on the U.S. Supreme Court.” 90 APSR 845-852. [JSTOR]

McGuire, Kevin T. and Barbara Palmer. 1996. “Issues, Agendas, and Decision Making on the Supreme Court.” 90 APSR 853-865. [JSTOR]

Gillman, Howard. 2002. “How Political Parties Can Use the Courts to Advance Their Agendas: Federal Courts in the United States, 1875-1891.”  

Other Reading

Perry, H.W. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

McGuire, Kevin T. 1994. “Amici Curiae and Strategies for Gaining Access to the Supreme Court.” 47 PRQ 821-837.  [JSTOR]

O’Brien, David M. 1997. “The Rehnquist Court’s Shrinking Plenary Docket.” 81 Judicature 58-65.

Week 10, 10/30            Political Impact of the Supreme Court Decisions

Rosenberg 1991. All.

Bussiere, Elizabeth. 1999.  “The Supreme Court and the Development of the Welfare State: Judicial Liberalism and the Problem of Welfare Rights.” In Clayton and Gillman 1999.

Canon, Bradley C. 1998. “The Supreme Court and Policy Reform: The Hollow Hope Revisited.” In Leveraging the Law: Using the Courts to Achieve Social Change.” David A. Schultz, ed. (New York, NY: Peter Lang). Pp. 215-249.  [e-reserve]

Other Reading

Bond, Jon and Charles A. Johnson. 1982. “Implementing a Permissive Policy: Hospital Abortion Services after Roe v. Wade.” 26 AJPS 1-24.

Songer, Donald R. 1988. “Alternative Approaches to the Study of Judicial Impact: Miranda in Five State Courts.” 16 APQ 425-444.

Bowen, Lauren. 1995. “Attorney advertising in the Wake of Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977): A Study of Judicial Impact.” 23 APQ 461-484.

Week 11, 11/6            Public Opinion and the Legitimacy of the Supreme Court

Caldeira, Gregory A. “Neither the Purse Nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confidence in the Supreme Court.” 80 APSR 1209-1226. [JSTOR]

Caldeira, Gregory A. and James L. Gibson. 1992. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Court.” 36 AJPS 635-664. [JSTOR]

Mishler, William, and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1993. “The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions.” 87 APSR 87-101. [JSTOR]

Norpoth, Helmut and Jeffrey A. Segal; and William Mishler and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1993.  “Popular Influence on Supreme Court Decisions.”   Critique and Rejoinder.  88 APSR 711-724. [JSTOR]

Other Reading

Flemming, Roy B. and B. Dan Wood. 1997. “The Public and the Supreme Court: Individual Justice Responsiveness to American Policy Moods.” 41 AJPS 468-498. [JSTOR]

Johnson, Timothy R. and Andrew D. Martin. 1998. “The Public’s Conditional Response to Supreme Court Decisions.” 92 APSR 299-309.

Hoekstra, Valerie. 1995. “The Supreme Court and Opinion Change: An Experimental Study of the Court’s Ability to Change Opinions.” 23 APQ 109-129.

Week 12, 11/13            Lower Federal Courts: Circuit Courts of Appeals

Howard, J. Woodford, Jr. 1977. “Role Perceptions and Behavior in Three U.S. Courts of Appeals.” 39 JOP 916-938. [JSTOR]

Songer, Donald R., Sue Davis, and Susan Haire. 1994. “A Reappraisal of Diversification in the Federal Courts: Gender Effects in the Courts of Appeals.” 56 JOP 425-439. [JSTOR]

Songer, Donald R. and Susan Haire.  1992. “Integrating Alternative Approaches to the Study of Judicial Voting: Obscenity Cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” 36 AJPS 963-982. [JSTOR]

Baum, et al.  “Evolution of Litigation in Federal Courts of Appeals …”  16 LSR 291-310. [Bender]

Other Reading

Barrow, Deborah J. and Gary Zuk. 1990. “An Institutional Analysis of  Turnover in the Lower Federal Courts, 1900-1987.” 52 JOP 457-476.

Spriggs, James F. and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 1995. “Calling It Quits: Strategic Retirement on the Federal Courts of Appeals, 1893-1991.” 48 PRQ 573-597.

Davis, Sue. 1986. “President Carter’s Selection Reforms and Judicial Policymaking: A Voting Analysis of the United States Courts of Appeals.” 14 APQ 328-344.

Week 13, 11/20            Lower Federal Courts: District Courts (**Makeup on different day)

Rowland, C.K. and Robert A. Carp.  1996. Politics and Judgment in Federal District Courts. (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas), Chapters 1, 2, 5, 6.

Goldman, Sheldon. 1997. Picking Federal Judges: Lower Court Selection. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press), Chapters 1, 2, 7, 8.

Ducat, Craig R. and Robert L. Dudley. 1989. “Federal District Judges and Presidential Power During the Postwar Era.” 51 JOP 98-118.

Segal, Jennifer A. 2000. “Representative Decision Making on the Federal Bench: Clinton’s District Court Appointees.” 53 PRQ 137-150.  [e-reserves]

Other Reading

Peltason, J.W. 1971.  58 Lonely Men: Southern Federal Judges and School Desegregation. (Chicago, IL: University Illinois Press).

Vines, Kenneth N. 1964. “Federal District Judges and Race Relations Cases in the South.” 26 JOP 334-351.

Week 14, 11/27            Thanksgiving: No Class

Week 15, 12/4   State Courts      *Research Papers Due*

Brace, Paul and Melinda Gann Hall. 1995. “Studying Courts Comparatively: The View from the American States.” 48 PRQ 5-29. [JSTOR]

Sheldon, Charles H. 1999. “The Incidence and Structure of Dissensus on a State Supreme Court.” In Clayton and Gillman 1999.

Hall, Melinda Gann. 1995. “Justices as Representatives: Elections and Judicial Politics in the American States.” 23 APQ 485-503.

Other Reading

Scheb, John M., Terry Bowen, and Larry Anderson. 1991. “Ideology, Role Orientations and Behavior in State Supreme Courts.” 19 APQ 324-335.

Slotnick, Elliot E. 1984. “Judicial Selection Systems and Nomination Outcomes: Does the Process Make a Difference?” 12 APQ 225-240.

 Songer, Donald R., and Susan J. Tabrizi. 1991. “The Religious Right in Court: The Decision Making of Christian Evangelicals in State Supreme Courts.” 61 JOP 507-526.  

Week 16: Final, Th 12/11             Conference:  Presentations, Discussants