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.
- PAR ID:
- 10533119
- Publisher / Repository:
- Routledge
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Politics, Groups, and Identities
- Volume:
- 11
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 2156-5503
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 226 to 245
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
-
more » « less
Since the 1970s, advocates have used the term
gender neutral to 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 neutrality appear, 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. -
Clark, Tom (Ed.)more » « less
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
Abstract This article analyzes how the judicial politics sparked by the European Union's (EU) legal development have evolved over time. Existing studies have traced how lower national courts began cooperating with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to apply EU law because this empowered them to challenge government policies and the decisions of their domestic judicial superiors. We argue that the institutional dynamics identified by this ‘judicial empowerment thesis’ proved self‐eroding over time, incentivizing domestic high courts to reassert control over national judicial hierarchies and to influence the development EU law in ways that were also encouraged by the ECJ. We support our argument by combining an analysis of a dataset of cases referred to the ECJ with comparative case study and interview evidence. We conclude that while these evolving judicial politics signal the institutional maturation of the EU legal order, they also risk weakening the decentralized enforcement of European law.
-
more » « less
The process of litigation is part of the decentered complex governance structure of risks and disaster. The process highlights problems that other institutions deflect. Courts are also part of defining problems in governing disaster. Scholarship drawing on legal decisions, including concerning environmental decision making, often relies upon the final decision from a highest court of appeal. Most cases settle, and courts make temporary decisions that other courts subsequently overturn or vacate. This process also names and deflects problems. Therefore, looking only to highest courts of appeals misstates how courts participate in governance. However, the process of litigating in lower courts is complex to follow, with partial decisions and settlements. This paper traces the histories of key housing assistance cases taken after Hurricane Katrina, following their multiple iterations as well as how later cases drew upon them, through 2018. Although initial decisions evinced concern for those who had lost their homes, flexible legal standards and limits on groups' ability to litigate allowed courts to limit government agencies’ accountability in court. This paper argues for integrating courts into the governance of risks and hazards, and for following trial courts and process.
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2021.1946098
