The Costs of Going Global

Abstract

Supreme Court influence depends greatly on the responses of lower court judges to its precedent. Justices employ numerous strategies to obtain lower court deference to their decisions, including the provocative practice of relying upon foreign law. Referred to as “constitutional cross-fertilization” when used in constitutional interpretation, this practice is labeled by critics as a threat to American democracy. Research suggests that the Court uses such references strategically to prop up controversial and ideologically charged decisions, and that they obtain a benefit in the form of increased citations. These studies do not tell us if the Court gains lower court deference. I contend that, in constitutional cases, lower court judges will not find reliance upon such sources persuasive; rather, they will regard these references with disdain. My findings support my argument. Contrary to the justices’ intentions, reliance upon foreign law in constitutional cases is associated with an increased probability of negative, as opposed to positive, treatment. Justices incur significant costs from participating in the global rights dialogue.

Influencing Enforcement: The Application of International Law in Independent Judiciaries—The Case of the Alien Tort Statute

“…Drawing from these insights from judicial decision making and international relations, our first hypothesis is that the liberal judges are more likely to uphold international human rights law than are conservative judges (hypothesis 1). Conceptually, liberal judges are more likely to support an internationalist stance (Stobb 2021) and more specifically, as applied to human rights law (Miller 2015) are more likely to support more rigorous enforcement.…”