No abstract

No abstract

This study predicts state supreme court judges' votes on claims based on a right to privacy by estimating an integrated model that incorporates contextual, attitudinal, and legal variables, including U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Consistent with previous research on judicial decision making, the results suggest that judges' rulings are influenced by various extralegal factors, both individual and contextual. But politics do not entirely overwhelm the role of law. U.S. Supreme Court precedent—when it exists—substantially constrains judges' responses to privacy claims in the states.The extent to which court rulings are based on the facts of a case or on judges' own policy preferences poses a question that continues to dominate judicial research. A growing body of evidence, exemplified by Segal and Spaeth's (1993) work on the so-called attitudinal model, suggests that judges' ideologies and political values play an important role in court decisions. This conclusion dismisses the validity of the so-called legal model, which holds that case facts and precedents are-or should be-the primary determinants of how judges decide cases. According to the attitudinal model, legal factors may play a role in judicial decisions, but their impact is mediated to a large degree by the way judges perceive them. Even when reviewing the same case, liberal judges may focus on one set of facts whereas conservative judges focus on another. As a result, judges' decisions are colored by their ideological interpretations of a case.' I Authors' Note: We are grateful to Professor James Garand and several anonymous reviewers for their comments on earher versions of this article.

No abstract

No abstract