An official website of the United States government
U.S. courts have long been thought to be held in special regard by the American public, and public support is theorized to protect institutions from interbranch aggression. At the same time, recent research underscores that institutional fealty and public reaction to court curbing is shaped by partisan concerns. Drawing on a survey experiment fielded in the U.S., we evaluate whether (1) the public is uniquely punitive toward incumbents who seek to undermine a court rather than an agency and (2) the extent to which these penalties are dependent upon shared partisanship with the proposer. We demonstrate that the public is less supportive of efforts to strip judicial power than analogous efforts to strip power from an executive agency, but that this penalty for court curbing dissipates in the face of copartisanship. This substantiates previous claims regarding the role of partisanship on shaping public attitudes about high courts but underscores that the American public may still hold the courts in unique regard.
more »
« less
Accountability for Court Packing
How does the public respond to court-packing attempts? Longstanding accounts of public support for courts suggest voters retaliate against incumbents who seek to manipulate well-respected courts. Yet incumbents might strategically frame their efforts in bureaucratic terms to minimize the public’s outcry or use court-packing proposals to activate a partisan base of support. Drawing on a series of survey experiments, we demonstrate that strategic politicians can minimize electoral backlash by couching court reform proposals in apolitical language, and institutional legitimacy’s shielding effect dissolves in the face of shared partisanship. These results shed new light on how ambitious politicians might avoid electoral consequences for efforts to bend the judiciary to their will.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10429418
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Law and Courts
- Volume:
- 2023
- ISSN:
- 2164-6570
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1 to 22
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Federal court records have been available online for nearly a quarter century, yet they remain frustratingly inaccessible to the public. This is due to two primary barriers: (1) the federal government's prohibitively high fees to access the records at scale and (2) the unwieldy state of the records themselves, which are mostly text documents scattered across numerous systems. Official datasets produced by the judiciary, as well as third-party data collection efforts, are incomplete, inaccurate, and similarly inaccessible to the public. The result is a de facto data blackout that leaves an entire branch of the federal government shielded from empirical scrutiny. In this Essay, we introduce the SCALES project: a new data-gathering and data-organizing initiative to right this wrong. SCALES is an online platform that we built to assemble federal court records, systematically organize them and extract key information, and-most importantly-make them freely available to the public. The database currently covers all federal cases initiated in 2016 and 2017, and we intend to expand this coverage to all years. This Essay explains the shortcomings of existing systems (such as the federal government's PACER platform), how we built SCALES to overcome these inadequacies, and how anyone can use SCALES to empirically analyze the operations of the federal courts. We offer a series of exploratory findings to showcase the depth and breadth of the SCALES platform. Our goal is for SCALES to serve as a public resource where practitioners, policymakers, and scholars can conduct empirical legal research and improve the operations of the federal courts. For more information, visit www.scales-okn.org.more » « less
-
Since the 1970s, advocates have used the termgender neutralto press for legal change in contexts ranging from employment discrimination to marriage equality to public restroom access. Drawing on analyses of all Supreme Court cases, federal courts of appeals cases, and Supreme Court amicus briefs in which the termsgender neutral/neutrality,sex neutral/neutrality, orsexually neutral/sexual neutralityappear, this study examines how US courts have defined gender neutrality and what the scope and limits of its legal application have been. We find that the courts have defined gender neutrality narrowly as facial neutrality, but nonetheless that this limited understanding has transformed some areas of the law, even if it has had little impact on others. Our analysis confirms earlier feminist skepticism about the sufficiency of gender neutrality to guarantee equality but also points to areas in which the law has yet to exploit the idea's significant potential to address discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity.more » « less
-
Given their place within the judicial hierarchy, judges on lower courts face a complex array of challenges including heavy caseloads, mandatory dockets, and the threat of Supreme Court reversal. Despite the extensive scholarship on the American courts, little is known about judicial interactions in comparative contexts. We articulate and evaluate a framework for lower court adherence to Supreme Court precedents by leveraging a cross-national design in three countries—Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States—with similar systems but meaningful institutional variability. We find that the mechanisms promulgating adherence to Supreme Court precedents do not substantially vary across design or institutional context. Instead, our results demonstrate that legal factors exert a consistent, homogeneous effect on lower court compliance across judicial systems. Our work offers new and important implications for studies on law and courts and comparative institutions, more broadly.more » « less
-
In widely used sociological descriptions of how accountability is structured through institutions, an “actor” (e.g., the developer) is accountable to a “forum” (e.g., regulatory agencies) empowered to pass judgements on and demand changes from the actor or enforce sanctions. However, questions about structuring accountability persist: why and how is a forum compelled to keep making demands of the actor when such demands are called for? To whom is a forum accountable in the performance of its responsibilities, and how can its practices and decisions be contested? In the context of algorithmic accountability, we contend that a robust accountability regime requires a triadic relationship, wherein the forum is also accountable to another entity: the public(s). Typically, as is the case with environmental impact assessments, public(s) make demands upon the forum's judgements and procedures through the courts, thereby establishing a minimum standard of due diligence. However, core challenges relating to: (1) lack of documentation, (2) difficulties in claiming standing, and (3) struggles around admissibility of expert evidence on and achieving consensus over the workings of algorithmic systems in adversarial proceedings prevent the public from approaching the courts when faced with algorithmic harms. In this paper, we demonstrate that the courts are the primary route—and the primary roadblock—in the pursuit of redress for algorithmic harms. Courts often find algorithmic harms non-cognizable and rarely require developers to address material claims of harm. To address the core challenges of taking algorithms to court, we develop a relational approach to algorithmic accountability that emphasizes not what the actors do nor the results of their actions, but rather how interlocking relationships of accountability are constituted in a triadic relationship between actors, forums, and public(s). As is the case in other regulatory domains, we believe that impact assessments (and similar accountability documentation) can provide the grounds for contestation between these parties, but only when that triad is structured such that the public(s) are able to cohere around shared experiences and interests, contest the outcomes of algorithmic systems that affect their lives, and make demands upon the other parties. Where courts now find algorithmic harms non-cognizable, an impact assessment regime can potentially create procedural rights to protect substantive rights of the public(s). This would require algorithmic accountability policies currently under consideration to provide the public(s) with adequate standing in courts, and opportunities to access and contest the actor's documentation and the forum's judgments.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1017/jlc.2022.14
