An official website of the United States government
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
Are courts “different?” Experimental evidence on the unique costs of attacking courts
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
- PAR ID:
- 10436962
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Research & Politics
- Volume:
- 10
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 2053-1680
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
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
-
Clark, Tom (Ed.)Abstract Do lower court judges influence the content of Supreme Court opinions in the United Kingdom? Leveraging original data, we analyze opinion language adoption practices of the UK Supreme Court. We advance a theory where the justices’ choices to adopt language from lower court opinions are influenced by Supreme Court-level attributes and Court of Appeal case characteristics. We uncover compelling evidence that UK Supreme Court justices incorporate language extensively from the written opinions of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. Our findings have significant implications for opinion formulation, doctrinal development, and higher and lower court interactions within comparative courts.more » « less
-
The authors examine how people interpret expert claims when they do not share experts’ technical understanding. The authors review sociological research on the cultural boundaries of science and expertise, which suggests that scientific disciplines are heuristics nonspecialists use to evaluate experts’ credibility. To test this idea, the authors examine judicial decisions about contested expert evidence in U.S. district courts ( n = 575). Multinomial logistic regression results show that judges favor evidence from natural scientists compared with social scientists, even after adjusting for other differences among experts, judges, and court cases. Judges also favor evidence from medical and health experts compared with social scientists. These results help illustrate the assumptions held by judges about the credibility of some disciplines relative to others. They also suggest that judges may rely on tacit assumptions about the merits of different areas of science, which may reflect broadly shared cultural beliefs about expertise and credibility.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680231188302
