Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online July 11, 2013

Law, Fact, and the Threat of Reversal From Above

Abstract

This article argues that the threat of review and reversal by supervising courts affects circuit court judges differently in disputes focusing on law compared to disputes focusing on facts. Because fact-bound cases are less likely to be reviewed than law-bound cases, lower court judges are freer to indulge their policy preferences in fact-bound cases. I test this argument using computer-assisted content analysis to measure the extent to which legal disputes are based on interpretations of facts and interpretations of relevant legal standards, respectively. The results of this content analysis are then used as independent variables in a model predicting the outcomes of legal challenges to the actions of administrative agencies. The results indicate that highly fact-bound decisions amplify the effects of judicial ideology while highly law-bound decisions constrain the effects of ideology.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

Aman A., Mayton W. (2001). Administrative law. (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Group.
Bartels B. (2009). The constraining capacity of legal doctrine in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 103, 474-495.
Baum L. (1997). The puzzle of judicial behavior. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Bowie J. B., Songer D. R. (2009). Assessing the applicability of strategic theory to explain decision making on the courts of appeals. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 393-407.
Brambor T., Clark W., Golder M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14, 63-82.
Breyer S., Stewart R., Sunstein C., Spitzer M. (2002). Administrative law and regulatory policy. New York, NY: Aspen Law and Business.
Brotherhood of Railway Carmen v. ICC, 880 F.2d 562 (D.C. Cir. 1988)
Coe K. (2007). The language of freedom in the American presidency, 1933-2006. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 37, 375-398.
Corley P. (2008). The supreme court and opinion content: The influence of parties’ briefs. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 468-478.
Corley P., Collins P., Calvin B. (2011). Lower court influence on U.S. supreme court opinion content. Journal of Politics, 73, 31-44.
Corley P., Howard R., Nixon D. (2005). The supreme court and opinion content: The use of the federalist papers. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 329-340.
Cross F. (2007). Decision making in the U.S. courts of appeals. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Epstein L., Martin A., Segal J., Westerland C. (2007). The judicial common space. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 23, 303325.
Evans M., McIntosh W., Lin J., Cates C. (2007). Recounting the courts? Applying automated content analysis to enhance empirical legal research. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 1007-1039.
Epstein L., Knight J. (1998). The choices justices make. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Frank J. (1951). Courts on trial. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gibbons J. (2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
Gennaioli N., Shleifer A. (2008). Judicial fact discretion. Journal of Legal Studies, 37, 1-35.
Giles M., Hettinger V., Peppers T. (2001). Picking federal judges: A note on policy and partisan selection agendas. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 623641.
Goldman S. (1966). Voting behavior on the U.S. courts of appeals, 1961-1964. American Political Science Review, 60, 374-383.
Goldman S. (1975). Voting behavior on the U.S. courts of appeals revisited. American Political Science Review, 69, 491-506.
Hall M., Wright F. (2008). Systematic content analysis of judicial opinions. California Law Review, 96, 63-122.
Haire S., Songer D., Lindquist S. (2003). Appellate court supervision in the federal judiciary: A hierarchical perspective. Law & Society Review, 37, 143-168
Hume R. (2009). Courting multiple audiences: The strategic selection of legal groundings by judges on the U.S. courts of appeals. Justice System Journal, 30, 14-33.
Humphries M., Songer D. (1999). Law and politics in judicial oversight of federal administrative agencies. Journal of Politics, 61, 207-220
Kastellec J. P. (2011). Panel composition and voting on the U.S. Courts of Appeals over time. Political Research Quarterly, 64, 377-391.
Klein D., Hume R. (2003). Fear of reversal as an explanation of lower court compliance. Law & Society Review, 37, 579-606.
Langer L. (2002). Judicial review in state supreme courts: A comparative study. Albany: SUNY Press.
Laver M., Benoit K., Garry J. (2003). Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review, 97, 311-331.
Lindquist S., Cross F. (2005). Empirically testing Dworkin’s chain novel theory: Studying the path of precedent. New York University Law Review, 80, 1156-1206.
Maltzman F., Spriggs J., Wahlbeck P. (2000). Crafting law on the supreme court: The collegial game. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
McGuire K., Vanberg G. (2005, September). Mapping the policies of the U.S. supreme court: Data, opinions, and constitutional law. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
McGuire K., Vanberg G., Yanus A. (2007, January). Targeting the median justice: A content analysis of legal arguments and judicial opinions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans.
Monroe B., Colaresi M., Quinn K. (2008). Fightin’ words: Lexical feature selection and evaluation for identifying the content of political conflict. Political Analysis, 16, 372-403
Neely v. Shalala, 997 F.2d 437 (8th Cir. 1993)
Owens R., Wedeking J. (2011). Justices and legal clarity: Analyzing the complexity of U.S. supreme court opinions. Law & Society Review, 45, 1027-1061.
Perry H. (1991). Deciding to decide: Agenda setting in the United States supreme court. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.
Primo D., Jacobsmeier M., Milyo J. (2007). Estimating the impact of state policies and institutions with mixed-level data. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 7, 446-459.
Randazzo K., Waterman R., Fine J. 2006. Checking the federal courts: The impact of congressional statutes on judicial behavior. Journal of Politics, 68, 1006-1017.
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971).
Segal J., Spaeth H. (1993). The supreme court and the attitudinal model. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Smith J., Tiller E. (2002). The strategy of judging: Evidence from administrative law. Journal of Legal Studies, 31, 61-82.
Songer D., Davis S. (1990). The impact of party and region on voting decisions in the United States courts of appeals, 1955-1986. Western Political Quarterly, 43, 317-334.
Songer D., Ginn M., Sarver T. (2003). Do judges follow the law when there is no fear of reversal. Justice System Journal, 24(2), 137-161.
Songer D., Segal J., Cameron C. (1994). The hierarchy of justice: Testing a principal-agent model of supreme court-circuit court interactions. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 673-696.
Songer D., Johnson S. (2002). The influence of presidential versus home state senatorial preferences on the policy output of judges on the United States district courts. Law & Society Review, 36, 657-676.
State Corporation Commission v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 894 F.2d 1141 (10th Cir. 1989)
Sunstein C., Sawicki A., Schkade D., Ellma L. (2006). Are judges political? An empirical analysis of the federal judiciary. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Zorn C., Bowie J. (2010). Ideological influences on decision making in the federal judicial hierarchy: An empirical assessment. Journal of Politics, 72, 1212-1221

Biographies

Joseph L. Smith is associate professor of Political Science at The University of Alabama. He received his PhD from the University of Texas at Austin in 1999.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the SAGE Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: July 11, 2013
Issue published: March 2014

Keywords

  1. courts
  2. law
  3. content analysis
  4. strategic behavior

Rights and permissions

© The Author(s) 2013.
Request permissions for this article.

History

Published online: July 11, 2013
Issue published: March 2014

Authors

Affiliations

Joseph L. Smith
The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA

Notes

Joseph L. Smith, The University of Alabama, Box 870213, 356 ten Hoor Hall Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA. Email: [email protected]

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in American Politics Research.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 194

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016

Articles citing this one

Web of Science: 3 view articles Opens in new tab

Crossref: 3

  1. Automated fact-value distinction in court opinions
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. Computational Methods in Legal Analysis
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  3. Disagreeable Rhetoric and the Prospect of Public Opposition: Opinion M...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub

Full Text

View Full Text