The Role of Constitutional Features in Judicial Review

Brown, Adam R.

doi:10.1177/1532440018786732

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 62 publications

(59 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With state constitutions applying unique state rules, customs, and civil rights, state supreme courts act as the final arbiters of their state constitutions and these constitutions vary dramatically in their policy content (Dinan, 2018;Hammons, 1999). Longer, more policy-based constitutions, in particular, give state supreme court decisions increased discretion when making decisions (Brown, 2018). Where state constitutions are expansive and cover many policy areas, both litigants and justices have more resources to develop cases.…”

Section: The Efficiency Of State Supreme Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competing Agendas and the Business of the American State Supreme Courts

Brace¹,

Boyea²

2019

BLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This project extends the research of Kagan et al. (1977) and Kritzer et al. (2007) to examine the production of cases in the American State Supreme Courts from 1995 to 1998. We explore the relationship between the resources available to courts and litigation output to understand not only the relative efficiency of state courts, but the trade-off between areas of law (criminal, tort, and public law litigation). Due to the complex relationships between variable resources (inputs) and the competing demands of alternative areas of law (outputs), we utilize Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to estimate relative efficiency scores for overall case production and specific areas of law. Our findings suggest that while many state supreme courts are highly efficient, many operate below full efficiency. Moreover, activity in one area of law frequently comes at the expense of another area. In addition, we use Tobit analysis to evaluate the institutional, political, and social environmental influences that account for its variation. Whether courts are more or less efficient is attributable to the methods by which the American states staff their courts, the political preferences of judges, patterns of defendant success, the number of active attorneys, use of the death penalty, and the political ideology of a state's government.

show abstract

Section: The Efficiency Of State Supreme Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competing Agendas and the Business of the American State Supreme Courts

Brace¹,

Boyea²

2019

BLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Do longer constitutions corrupt?

Pavlik

Jahan

Young

2023

European Journal of Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Constitutional Recency and Support for Judicial Review

Brown,

Krewson

2024

J. law courts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under what conditions are people more likely to support judicial invalidation of legislative acts? We theorize that constitutional recency confers greater democratic legitimacy on constitutional provisions, reducing concerns that judges may use dated language to impose their own will on a living majority. Exploiting differences among US state constitutions, we show in a pre-registered vignette experiment and conjoint analysis that Americans are more supportive of judicial review and original intent interpretation when presented with a younger constitutional provision or constitution. These results imply that Americans might alter their approach to the US Constitution if it were changed as easily and as often as a typical state constitution.

show abstract

The Role of Constitutional Features in Judicial Review

Cited by 5 publications

References 62 publications

Competing Agendas and the Business of the American State Supreme Courts

Competing Agendas and the Business of the American State Supreme Courts

Do longer constitutions corrupt?

Constitutional Recency and Support for Judicial Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About