The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions, and Developments, 6th Ed.
Publication Year: 2015
The Supreme Court Compendium provides historical and statistical information on the Supreme Court: its institutional development; caseload; decision trends; the background, nomination, and voting behavior of its justices; its relationship with public, governmental, and other judicial bodies; and its impact. With over 180 tables and figures, this new edition is intended to capture the full retrospective picture of the 2010-2014 terms of the Roberts Court and the momentous decisions handed down within the last four years, including United States v. Windsor, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and Shelby County v. Holder.
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 1: The Supreme Court: An Institutional Perspective
- Chapter 2: The Supreme Court's Review Process, Caseload, and Cases
- Chapter 3: The Supreme Court's Opinion, Decision, and Outcome Trends
- Chapter 4: The Justices: Backgrounds, Nominations, and Confirmations
- Chapter 5: The Justices: Post-Confirmation Activities and Departures from the Court
- Chapter 6: The Justices: Oral Arguments, Votes, and Opinions
- Chapter 7: The Supreme Court: Its Political and Legal Environments
- Chapter 8: The Supreme Court and Public Opinion
- Chapter 9: The Impact of the Supreme Court
SAGE was founded in 1965 by Sara Miller McCune to support the dissemination of usable knowledge by publishing innovative and high-quality research and teaching content. Today, we publish more than 850 journals, including those of more than 300 learned societies, more than 800 new books per year, and a growing range of library products including archives, data, case studies, reports, and video. SAGE remains majority-owned by our founder, and after Sara's lifetime will become owned by a charitable trust that secures our continued independence.
Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC
Copyright © 2015 by CQ Press, an imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc. CQ Press is a registered trademark of Congressional Quarterly Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
An Imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
SAGE Publications Ltd.
1 Oliver's Yard
55 City Road
London EC1Y 1SP
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.
3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub
Printed in the United States of America
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
15 16 17 18 19 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Assistant Editor: Laura Notton
Editorial Assistant: Jordan Enobakhare
Production Editor: David C. Felts
Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.
Proofreader: Wendy Jo Dymond
Indexer: Kathy Paparchontis
Cover Designer: Michael Dubowe
Marketing Manager: Carmel Schrire
[Page v]In memory of my grandfather, Martin Buxbaum
For Michelle and Paul
For my coauthors, who made the compilation of this book a thoroughly enjoyable endeavor
For Coleman, Evan, Clayton, and Carley
CQ Press[Page vi]
CQ Press, an imprint of SAGE, is the leading publisher of books, periodicals, and electronic products on American government and international affairs. CQ Press consistently ranks among the top commercial publishers in terms of quality, as evidenced by the numerous awards its products have won over the years. CQ Press owes its existence to Nelson Poynter, former publisher of the St. Petersburg Times, and his wife Henrietta, with whom he founded Congressional Quarterly in 1945. Poynter established CQ with the mission of promoting democracy through education and in 1975 founded the Modern Media Institute, renamed The Poynter Institute for Media Studies after his death. The Poynter Institute (http://www.poynter.org) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to training journalists and media leaders.
In 2008, CQ Press was acquired by SAGE, a leading international publisher of journals, books, and electronic media for academic, educational, and professional markets. Since 1965, SAGE has helped inform and educate a global community of scholars, practitioners, researchers, and students spanning a wide range of subject areas, including business, humanities, social sciences, and science, technology, and medicine. A privately owned corporation, SAGE has offices in Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Singapore, in addition to the Washington DC office of CQ Press.
Preface to the Sixth Edition[Page xv]
As professors who teach courses and conduct research on courts and law, we became increasingly frustrated with the absence of a comprehensive collection of information on the U.S. Supreme Court. It seemed that each time we needed even the simplest datum, whether it be a Senate vote on a particular nominee or the number of cases argued during a given term, we had to consult three or four different books and articles to find the desired information. This sense of frustration led to the compilation of the first edition of The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions, and Developments.
Our goal for this sixth edition is the same as it was for the first five: to provide a comprehensive collection of data and relevant information on the U.S. Supreme Court. We have attempted to cover as many bases as possible, from characteristics of the Court and its members, to the environment in which it operates, to the public's views on its decisions and perceptions about the Court itself, and much more. We have sought to provide readers with some insight into how we collected the data and why we consider them important. We urge readers to use both the general introduction and the introductions included with each chapter as guides to the information presented in the tables and figures that follow. Readers should also pay particular attention to table notes, where we identify data sources and, when relevant, caution readers about potential irregularities in data interpretation.
Of course, there are differences between this and the previous editions. First, we updated virtually every table. So, for example, readers will find a wealth of information on the personal and professional backgrounds of the Court's two most recent appointees—Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. At the same time, we have retained the backdating included in the last two editions. Such data will be of particular use to researchers who wish to conduct longitudinal analyses of the Court and its members; they now have highly reliable data for nearly six decades (1946–2013 terms). Second, we continue to refine the tables so that they are as useful as possible to a range of readers. Accomplishing this goal led us to rethink several. For example, we have further consolidated the interagreement tables and revised others, to convey as clearly as possible the information that we think (and hope!) readers will find most useful.
In addition, given the dynamic nature of the data in this volume, CQ Press has rolled out an online version of the Compendium that allows for data downloads, as well as for more frequent updates. For example, because we were unable to include reliable data for the 2014–2015 term in this edition, we will post those data on CQ Press's Web site.
[Page xvi]Two final notes about this edition. First, readers familiar with editions before the fifth should recheck the source notes. Many of the tables come from the modernized version of the U.S. Supreme Court Database (http://supremecourtdatabase.org) rather than from the original. This required us to rewrite all the source notes to conform to the new naming conventions.
Second, putting this edition together required us to work with a great deal of data. Although we took pains to check and recheck all the tables, it is possible that we committed errors of omission and commission. Naturally, we take responsibility for both. We ask readers who find errors in the text or tables to please contact us so that we may remedy them in subsequent editions and for the online version. Please direct e-mail to Lee Epstein at firstname.lastname@example.org. In revising this (and previous) editions, we have benefited greatly from our readers and encourage them to contact us about this one as well.
Many people assisted us in producing this and earlier editions of The Supreme Court Compendium. The folks at CQ Press were, as always, terrific. We initially pitched the project to Brenda Carter, who provided a great deal of encouragement. Our editor for the first edition, Jeanne Ferris, could not have been more helpful or patient. She read the entire text and considered all the tables with an eye toward clarity and readability. This edition continues to reap the benefits of Jeanne's keen interest. Sarah J. Walker served as the development editor on the 5th edition and Laura Notton, on this edition, and we thank them for jobs very well done. We also appreciate the important contributions of the CQ Press staff who helped us with the new edition.
We have fabulous colleagues in the law and courts field—many of whom took the time to offer suggestions and even data, for this and earlier editions. We are especially indebted to Judy Baer (Texas A&M), Ryan Black (Michigan State University), Gregory Caldeira (Ohio State University), Micheal Giles (Emory University), Leslie Goldstein (University of Delaware), Valerie Hoekstra (Arizona State University), Tim Johnson (University of Minnesota), Jack Knight (Duke University), William M. Landes (University of Chicago), Richard Lazarus (Harvard University), Andrew D. Martin (University of Michigan), Jan Palmer (Ohio University), Kevin Quinn (University of California, Berkeley), Richard A. Posner (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the University of Chicago), Jim Spriggs (Washington University in St. Louis), and James Stimson of the (University of North Carolina).
Research assistants at our respective institutions performed various essential tasks throughout this undertaking. Since this edition builds on the first five, we want again to acknowledge a generation or two of our former students (many of whom are now professors): Emily Baehl, Ellen Baik, Ryan Black, Scott Comparato, Justine D'Elia Kueper, Paul Fabrizio, [Page xvii]Marjorie George, Tracey George, Scott Graves, Chris Hasselman, Marc Hendershot, Robert Howard, Tim Johnson, Chad King, Maxwell Mak, Madhavi McCall, Robert Oritz, Kirk Randazzo, Melissa Schwartzberg, Eddie Sindaco, James Spriggs, Jeff Staton, Zachary Truelson, and Elyce Winters. In addition, we are grateful to Ryan Black, Paul Collins, Tim Johnson, Andrew Koshner, Andrew Martin, Ryan Owens, Kevin Quinn, Rorie Spill, Jim Spriggs, and Christina Wolbrecht, for making their data publicly available.
Although a four-person collaboration was a great deal of fun, it was our home institutions that bore many of the costs. Epstein thanks the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation for research support. And we all thank the Law and Social Science Program of the National Science Foundation (NSF) for supporting our projects on the Court, including the U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Database, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices Database, and the digital archive of the Papers of Justice Harry A. Blackmun. Without NSF funding, this volume would be considerably less comprehensive.L.E., St. LouisJ.A.S., Stony BrookH.J.S., East LansingT.G.W., Atlanta[Page xviii]
About the Authors
Before the first edition of The Supreme Court Compendium was published in 1994, there was no comprehensive collection of data on the U.S. Supreme Court. This was unfortunate, not only because of the importance of the Court in American government but also because the absence of reliable data makes it hard to understand the Court, the justices, and their decisions. This volume is our effort to rectify this deficiency.
We hope that readers will find useful the data and information presented in the following pages. Before continuing, though, we urge them to read this introduction and the introductions opening each chapter so that they might better understand the choices we made in compiling the data. Here, we provide information on data sources, the scope of the data, data presentation, and the overall organization of the volume. In the introductions preceding each chapter, we provide more specific details on the tables they contain.Data Sources and Scope of the Data
Our sources of information vary widely, depending on what dimension of the Court we are examining. The reports of the Court's decisions are the primary sources. The official record is the United States Reports.1 Three privately printed sources are also employed: The Lawyers' Edition,2The Supreme Court Reporter,3 and United States Law Week.4 In Tables 2-9 and 2-10 we provide additional information about these various systems. Two major legal electronic information retrieval systems, Lexis and Westlaw, also contain the Court's decisions. We used these sources when gathering data requiring specific search delimiters. Other sources of electronically transmitted information are various Web sites (see Table 1-8).
We also obtained information from archived databases. The U.S. Supreme Court Database (originally developed by Harold J. Spaeth)5 focuses on Supreme Court cases, providing a wealth of data beginning with the Vinson Court through to the present. Among the many attributes of the Court decisions coded in the database are the names of the courts making the original decision, the identities of the parties to a case, the policy context of a case, and the votes of each justice. It and accompanying documentation are freely available at http://supremecourtdatabase.org. Along with the Gallup Poll, the Harris Survey, and unpublished press releases issued by the New York Times, we use data gathered by the National Opinion Research Center (and archived as the General Social Survey) as sources for information on public opinion. Because survey [Page xxii]responses are extremely sensitive to question wording, we typically eschew onetime “snapshots” of public opinion on questions relevant to the judiciary and focus instead on trends over time.
We compiled additional data from government reports. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970,6 and the Statistical Abstract of the United State7 (published annually since 1878 but discontinued in 2011) are “the standard summar[ies] of statistics on the social, political, and economic organization of the United States.”8 For our purposes, they are particularly useful sources of Court caseload statistics. Another very helpful source is The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation.9 Among other things, it lists all Court decisions overruled by subsequent decisions and all cases in which the Court held unconstitutional acts of federal, state, and local governments. We also rely on reports issued by various government actors and agencies. Examples include the Administrative Office of the United States Courts,10 which issues annual reports on Court caseloads; and the Annual Report of the Attorney General of the United States,11 which contains various data on the processing of Court litigation. Such data are increasingly available on the Web.
Finally, we scoured historical accounts and secondary material to fill in blanks and verify other sources. This was particularly the case in collecting information about the lives of the justices. While there has been a great deal written about the most famous of the justices, little is known about many of the others. Much of the data on the justices come from well-established biographical sources, including Leon Friedman and Fred Israel's The Justices of the United States Supreme Court,12The Judicial Conference of the United States's Judges of the United States,13The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography,14 and The Dictionary of American Biography.15The First One Hundred Justices16 by Albert P. Blaustein and Roy M. Mersky was especially helpful. Similarly, a great deal of information came from John Schmidhauser's classic study of the backgrounds of the justices.17 Data from this important work are archived at the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.18 And Lee Epstein, Thomas G. Walker, and Nancy Staudt have now updated Schmidhauser's study, with their data housed in the U.S. Supreme Court Justices Database (http://epstein.wustl.edu/research/justicesdata.html). Specifically, the database contains more than 300 variables, falling into four categories: background characteristics and personal attributes, nomination and confirmation, service on the Court, and departures from the bench. Nonetheless, even with the wealth of information contained in these sources, significant gaps remained. We filled these holes by consulting scores of biographies on the justices, newspaper accounts, and studies of the various historical periods. At the end of this process, we were still plagued with missing information [Page xxiii]and instances where contradictory claims in the biographical literature could not be resolved to our complete satisfaction. Unfortunately, such difficulties are inevitable when dealing with incomplete historical records. Notes to the tables alert readers to these and other problems.
The scope of our information also varies considerably. Whenever possible we tried to present data dating back to the Court's inception in February 1790. Unfortunately, this was more the exception than the rule, as such longitudinal data have seldom been compiled and, when they have, are often riddled with inconsistency. We were especially handicapped in our ability to offer information on voting behavior prior to the Vinson Court era, as our most reliable sources, Spaeth's Supreme Court databases, do not antedate 1946. (We are now in the process of backdating the database and hope to provide reliable longitudinal data in the next edition.)
For data other than voting behavior, though, we were often able to locate information going back to the early 1900s and occasionally even the 1800s. We want to alert readers to the fact that, while we sought to verify historical data against other sources, we did not attempt to research the primary data sources. In some instances, therefore, we cannot vouch for accuracy. Once again, table notes alert readers to these potential problems.Presentation of the Data
Several major concerns guided our presentation of the data. First, we sought to be as comprehensive as possible. Accordingly, we provide data well fitted to tabular presentation as well as data that are not. Examples of the latter are a chronology of events in the Court's history (Table 1-1) and catalogs of landmark decisions (Tables 2-12 and 2-13). To organize and communicate the data in usable fashion, we exercised our judgment of how best to present them, as most of the data have either not been compiled at all or have not appeared in any systematic fashion. Where possible, we have conformed to customary and conventional categorization, such as chronological, alphabetical, or topical. But for the vast majority of the data, conventions simply do not exist. Hence, we proceeded on the bases of clarity and understanding.
Second, for those tables derived from the U.S. Supreme Court Database, we wanted to provide sufficient information for readers to understand, evaluate, build on, or reproduce them. Accordingly, for each table we provide at least two crucial pieces of information—the specific data set we used and the “decisionType.” The first is important because the U.S. Supreme Court Database comes in different versions. Of primary interest here is whether we used the version based on citation or docket:
- [Page xxiv]
- Citation: Sometimes the Court decides several cases under one opinion. Using this version of the database will identify only the lead case. (For users of the original database, this is analu=0.)
- Docket: In those instances when the Court decided several cases under one opinion, this unit of analysis will bring up all cases, not just the lead case. This can be useful when differences exist between or among cases consolidated under one citation, such as the court in which the case originated, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed, the parties to the case, and so on. (For users of the original database, this is analu=1.)
Within the database, “decisionType” refers to the types of decisions the Court renders. The database offers a number of options:
- decisionType = 1: Cases in which the Court hears oral argument and which it decides by a signed opinion. These are the Court's so-called formally decided full opinion cases.
- decisionType = 2: Cases decided with an opinion but without hearing oral argument; that is, per curiam opinions.
- decisionType = 4: Decrees. This infrequent type of decision usually arises under the Court's original jurisdiction and involves state boundary disputes. The justices will typically appoint a special master to take testimony and render a report, the bulk of which generally becomes the Court's decision. The presence of the label “decree” distinguishes this type of decision from the others.
- decisionType = 5: Cases decided by an equally divided vote. When a justice fails to participate in a case or when the Court has a vacancy, the participating justices may cast a tie vote. In such cases, the reports merely state that “the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided vote” and the name of any nonparticipating justice(s). Their effect is to uphold the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed.
- decisionType = 6: This decision type is a variant of the formally decided cases (decisionType=1). It differs from type 1 only in that no individual justice's name appears as author of the Court's opinion. Instead, these unsigned orally argued cases are labeled as decided “per curiam.” The difference between this type and decisionType = 2 is the occurrence of oral argument in the former but not the latter. In both types the opinion of the Court is unsigned, that is, per curiam.
- decisionType = 7: Judgments of the Court. This decision type is also a variant of the formally decided cases. It differs from type 1 in that less than a majority of the participating justices agree with the opinion produced by [Page xxv]the justice assigned to write the Court's opinion. Except for those interested only in the authors of the opinions of the Court, decisionType = 7 should be included in analyses of the Court's formally decided cases.19 Readers can learn more about decisionType (as well as citation versus docket) from the documentation on the database's Web site. We wish to note here that users need not select only decisionType. Indeed, among the most common combinations appearing in our tables is one in which we use the “docket” version of the database and the type of decision equals formally decided full-opinion cases, orally argued per curiams, and judgments of the Court (decisionType = 1, 6, or 7).
At the same time, while providing readers with sufficient information to replicate the tables, we sought to minimize the technical character of the data. This is not an easy task since the Court and its activities are complex matters typically characterized by a somewhat arcane vocabulary (notwithstanding the inroads made on legalese by the plain English movement of recent years). Although we eliminated technical terms to the extent possible, they are by no means absent. For this reason (and several others noted earlier), it is especially important that readers review the notes following the tables. Legal definitions typically lack even imprecise meaning. What rights, for example, are objectively within—or outside— “the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty”?20 What principles of justice are “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental”?21 Is a declaration of unconstitutionality or the overruling of a precedent beyond dispute? Moreover, many legal definitions create distinctions between things that arguably have no meaningful differences. A jurisdictional dissent, for example, includes dissents from the Court's refusal to decide a case, from the Court's affirmation of a lower court's decision without oral argument, and from the Court's assertion of jurisdiction over a case. None addresses the merits of the controversy. Should they be distinguished from one another or simply lumped together? Does it really matter? In short, we had to formulate our own operationally meaningful definitions, as the notes to the tables point out.
In addition, technical terms do not necessarily have conventional meanings. Jurisdictional dissents provide a good example, as do concurring opinions. Is a concurring opinion that fully agrees with the content of the majority opinion to be treated the same as one that agrees only with the result reached by the majority? We do not think so; hence, we separate them into “regular” and “special” concurrences. In our view, the justices who join the former type are full-fledged members of the majority opinion coalition, while those joining the latter are not. And if enough justices specially concur, no opinion of the Court will result—only a judgment. In such a case, the decision provides little guidance either to the litigants or to others similarly situated. Consider also the basic question of how to [Page xxvi]count cases. Should each citation be treated separately, or should one count the number of docketed cases under a given citation? Furthermore, should one limit analysis only to “formally” decided cases—that is, to those cases that have been orally argued? And if so, should orally argued cases with the prevailing opinion signed by a justice be included alone, or in tandem with those decided per curiam (in which no individual justice authors the prevailing opinion)? Because no convention dictates the answers to these and other matters, the explanatory notes following the tables (including the version and decision type we invoked when working with the Supreme Court Database) are particularly important.
Finally, apart from convention, certain matters are sufficiently unusual that they must be treated in an ad hoc fashion. Although we sometimes report anomalies in separate tables (see Table 4-20, for example), such peculiarities will often affect the contents of related tables. This, too, points to the need to pay close attention to the notes that accompany the tables.
The fact that the Court operates in a technical fashion need not cloud comprehension and understanding. We have defined terms in a nontechnical fashion, and the tables themselves do not require advanced interpretive skills. The book is based on simple numerical data, not the results of complicated statistical analyses. It should be useful to the methodologically skilled and unskilled alike.The Organization of the Book
Chapter organization progresses logically. We begin in Chapters 1 through 3 with an institutional overview of the Court's history, the constitutional and congressional provisions that govern the Court and its jurisdiction, the Court's caseload, and landmark decisions. We also identify various chronological and topical trends apparent in the Court's decisions and opinions.
Chapters 4, 5, and 6 shift the focus from cases to the individual justices. We identify family backgrounds, childhood environments, marital status, educational and employment histories, and political experiences. Dates and circumstances of nomination and confirmation are supplied as well, as are dates of Court service. The circumstances surrounding retirements, resignations, and deaths are reviewed. The justices' scholarly credentials are identified and quotations from classic opinions excerpted. The justices' voting behavior is viewed ideologically, and trends in voting agreement are presented. We also identify the justices' opinion-writing proclivities and those who agreed between themselves.
Chapter 7 considers the political and legal environments in which the Court operates. In the first part of the chapter we identify congressional [Page xxvii]legislation most frequently the subject of Court litigation, amendments ratified to alter Court decisions, and key congressional members whose legislative activities affect the judicial system (for example, the chairs of the House and Senate judiciary committees). We map the organization of the Justice Department and list the names and dates of service of persons heading these agencies. We also chart the success of the United States as a party before the Supreme Court and note the rates of success of various administrative agencies. Finally, we enumerate the frequency with which states participate in Court litigation and the rates of success they achieve in so doing. In the second part of Chapter 7 we focus on other courts within the judicial system: federal district courts, circuit courts of appeal, specialized federal courts, and state courts. At the federal court level, we specify, among other things, the extent to which the Supreme Court has reversed and affirmed lower court decisions. For the state courts, we detail Supreme Court review of state court decisions.
Chapter 8 summarizes the public's views of the Court, both overall and by subgroup. Questions reviewed include “How knowledgeable is the public about the Court?” and “To what extent does the public support the Court's resolution of specific controversial issues?”
Chapter 9 addresses the impact of the Court on certain public policy questions. Abortion, capital punishment, school desegregation, voter registration, and reapportionment are examples of issues covered.
In compiling the data contained in the pages that follow, detailed and voluminous though they be, we have made no attempt to resolve the questions and controversies that presently surround the Court. Questions such as “Are the justices overworked, too old, too unrepresentative?” “Is the Court rendering too many liberal decisions, or too many conservative ones?” “Is the Court addressing pertinent issues of broad public concern?” “Does the U.S. solicitor general exercise too much influence over the justices?” are not answered here. The data we supply are simply that: information about the Court and its environment. We have compiled and reported these data as accurately and as objectively as possible. They do not cover the totality of the activity that occurs within the confines of the justices' “Marble Palace.” Our data, rather, are an appropriate starting point for analysis. But by no means are they the last word on the subjects to which they pertain.Notes
1. United States Reports (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office).
2. The Lawyers' Edition (Rochester, N.Y.: Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Co.).
3. The Supreme Court Reporter (Minneapolis, Minn.: West Publishing Co.).
4. United States Law Week (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs).
[Page xxviii]5. http://supremecourtdatabase.org.
6. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975).
7. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office).
8. Ibid., v.
9. U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation: Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office).
10. Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office).
11. U.S. Department of Justice, Annual Report of the Attorney General of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office).
12. Leon Friedman and Fred L. Israel, eds., The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions (New York: R. R. Bowker, 1969–1978).
13. Judges of the United States, 2d ed. (Washington, D.C.: Judicial Conference of the United States, 1983).
14. The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography (New York: James T. White).
15. The Dictionary of American Biography (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons).
16. Albert P. Blaustein and Roy M. Mersky, The First One Hundred Justices (Hamden, Conn.: Shoe String Press, 1978).
17. John Schmidhauser, “The Justices of the Supreme Court: A Collective Portrait,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 3 (February 1959): 1–57.
18. Ann Arbor, Mich., Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, published as study #7240.
19. The database does not contain all of the non-orally argued per curiam decisions (decisionType = 2). The Reports contain large numbers of brief, non-orally argued per curiam decisions. The database includes only those for which the Court has provided a summary, as well as those without a summary in which one or more of the justices wrote an opinion.
20. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), at 325.
21. Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 95 (1934), at 105.
Selected Readings[Page 805]
The books listed here may be useful to readers who would like to explore further subjects covered in our tables. See also Table 5-12 for books written by the Justices and Table 5-14 for biographies of the Justices.The Judiciary: The Supreme Court in the Governmental Process.10th ed.New York: New York University Press, 1996.The Supreme Court.11th ed.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2012.The Constitution in the Supreme Court, 1789–1986. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.Devins, Neal, and Davison M.Douglas, eds. A Year at the Supreme Court. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/9780822385950The Behavior of Federal Judges. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674067325, , and ,Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Institutional Powers and Constraints., and .9th ed.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2016.Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices. New York: Twelve, 2010.Marble Palace: The Supreme Court in American Life. New York: Knopf, 1958.Saying What the Law Is: The Constitution in the Supreme Court. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004.Antecedents and Beginnings to 1801: The History of the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Macmillan, 1971.The U.S. Supreme Court: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780199754540.001.0001Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States.2nd ed.New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.The Supreme Court: An Essential History. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2007., , , and .Jost, Kenneth, ed. The Supreme Court A to Z.5th ed.Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452234373The U.S. Supreme Court: A Bibliography. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1990., and .The American Supreme Court.3d ed.Revised by SanfordLevinson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.The Modern Supreme Court. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972. http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674428508[Page 806]The American Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.Understanding the U.S. Supreme Court: Cases and Controversies. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.Storm Center.9th ed.New York: Norton, 2011.The Role of the Supreme Court in American Politics. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2002.Courtiers of the Marble Palace: The Rise and Influence of the Supreme Court Law Clerk. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2006.The Supreme Court. New York: Knopf, 2001.Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: Freeman, 1976., and .Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court.5th ed.Washington: CQ Press, 2010.The Supreme Court: Its Politics, Personality, and Procedures. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960.A History of the Supreme Court. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615696, and .Supreme Court Practice,, , , , and .10th ed.Arlington, Va.Bloomberg/BNA, 2013.The Supreme Court in American Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States., and .3rd ed.New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.The Supreme Court in United States History. Boston: Little, Brown, 1926.Answering the Call of the Court. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2008.The Caseload of the Supreme Court, and What, If Anything, to Do about It. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1973.The Least Dangerous Branch of Government. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1986.Stare Indecisis: The Alteration of Precedent on the Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996., and .The Workload of the Supreme Court. Chicago: American Bar Foundation, 1974., and .Judicial Review and the National Political Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.Measuring Judicial Activism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195370850.001.0001, and .Pluralist Democracy in the United States. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967.Democracy and Distrust. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980.[Page 807]The Supreme Court and Legal Change: Abortion and the Death Penalty. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992., and .Redefining the Supreme Court's Role. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1986., and .Federal Judicial Center. Case Load of the Supreme Court: A Report of the Study Group. Washington, D.C.: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 1972.The Business of the Supreme Court: A Study in the Federal Judicial System. New York: Macmillan, 1928., and .The Supreme Court and Partisan Realignment. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1991.A Distinct Judicial Power. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199765874.001.0001The Power of PrecedentNew York: Oxford University Press, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195150506.001.0001Halpern, Stephen, and CharlesLamb, eds. Supreme Court Activism and Restraint. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1982.The Politics of Precedent. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2006., andThe Most Activist Supreme Court in History: The Road to Modern Judicial Conservatism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226428864.001.0001Playing It Safe: How the Supreme Court Sidesteps Hard Cases and Stunts the Development of Law. New York: New York University Press, 2001.The Limits of Judicial Power. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988.The Transformation of the Supreme Court's Agenda. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1991.Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991.Case Selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999.The Constrained Court. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400840267and .The Puzzle of Judicial Behavior. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997.Oral Arguments and Coalition Formation on the U.S. Supreme Court. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2012., , and .Concurring Opinion Writing on the U.S. Supreme Court. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2010.The Puzzle of Unanimity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.11126/stanford/9780804784726.001.0001, , and .Battles on the Bench. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995.[Page 808]Dickson, Del, ed. The Supreme Court in Conference (1940–1985): The Private Discussions Behind Nearly 300 Supreme Court Decisions. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.The Behavior of Federal Judges. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674067325, , and ,The Choices Justices Make. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1998., and .Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the United States Supreme Court. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004.DavidKlein and GregoryMitchell, eds. The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367584.001.0001Closed Chambers. New York: Random House, 1998.Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000., , and .Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.Decision Making by the Modern Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511843501, , and .The Roosevelt Court. New York: Macmillan, 1948.Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: Freeman, 1976., and .The Judicial Mind Revisited. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.Quantitative Analysis of Judicial Behavior. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press, 1959..Decision: How the Supreme Court Decides Cases. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615696, and .Smolla, Rodney A., ed. A Year in the Life of the Supreme Court. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1995. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/9780822381945Supreme Court Policy Making. San Francisco: Freeman, 1979.Majority Rule or Minority Will: Adherence to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625572, and .Constitutional Process: A Social Choice Analysis of Supreme Court Decision Making. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000.Understanding Supreme Court Opinions.3d ed.New York: Longman, 2001.The Psychology of the Supreme Court. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306040.001.0001Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments from Washington to Clinton.Rev. ed.Lanham, Md: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999.Leaving the Bench: Supreme Court Justices at the End. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1999.[Page 809]The First 108 Justices. Buffalo, N.Y.: W. S. Hein, 2004., and .Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973.The Rehnquist Legacy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006., ed.Battle for Justice: How the Bork Nomination Shook America. New York: Norton, 1989.Seeking Justice: The Judging of Supreme Court Nominees. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004.The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies, 1789–1995.3d ed.Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 2012.A Supreme Court Justice Is Appointed. New York: Random House, 1964.Electing Justice: Fixing the Supreme Court Nomination Process. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.The Great Justices, 1941–1954: Black, Douglas, Frankfurter, and Jackson in Chambers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006.Advice and Consent: The Politics of Judicial Appointments. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006., and .Picking Federal Judges. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1997.Justice Takes a Recess: Judicial Appointments from George Washington to George W. Bush. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books, 2009., and .Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun's Supreme Court Journey. New York: Times Books, 2005.Decision. New York: Dutton, 1970.The Selling of Supreme Court Nominees. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.Strategic Selection. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007.A ‘Representative’ Supreme Court? The Impact of Race, Religion, and Gender on Appointments. New York: Greenwood, 1991.The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries that Defined America. New York: Times Books/Henry Holt, 2006.Judges and Justices. Boston: Little, Brown, 1979.Judicious Choices: The New Politics of Supreme Court Confirmations. New York: Norton, 1994.In His Own Image. New York: McKay, 1973.God Save this Honorable Court: How the Choice of Justice Shapes Our History. New York: Random House, 1985.Urofsky, Melvin I., ed. Biographical Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2006.Impeachable Offenses: A Documentary History from 1787 to the Present. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1999., and .Supreme Court Appointments: Judge Bork and the Politicization of Senate Confirmations. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999., and , eds. [Page 810]Deciding to Leave: The Politics of Retirement from the United States Supreme Court. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003.Shaping America: The Politics of Supreme Court Appointments. New York: HarperCollins, 1995., and .Pursuit of Justices: Presidential Politics and the Selection of Supreme Court Nominees. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments from Washington to Clinton.Rev. ed.Lanham, Md: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999.Specializing the Courts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.The U.S. Court of Appeals and the Law of Confessions: Perspectives on the Hierarchy of Justice. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.The Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court: Executive Branch Influence and Judicial Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139058391and .Congress v. the Supreme Court. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969. http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674733725Campbell, Colton C., and John F.Stack, Jr., eds. Congress Confronts the Court: The Struggle for Legitimacy and Authority in Lawmaking. Lanham, Md: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001.The Tenth Justice. New York: Knopf, 1987.Policymaking and Politics in the Federal District Courts. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1983., and .The Limits of Judicial Independence. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Friends of the Supreme Court. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195372144.001.0001Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Palo Alto, Calif: Stanford University Press, 2007.Conservatives in Court. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1985.Dynamic Statutory Interpretation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994.The Supreme Court and Congress. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and the President. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997..Constitutional Dialogues. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1988. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400859573.A Mere Machine: The Supreme Court, Congress, and American Democracy. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.12987/yale/9780300171112.001.0001The Special Prosecutor in American Politics.2d rev. ed.Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000.Judging on a Collegial Court. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006., , and .Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400855452[Page 811]Courts and Congress. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1997.The U.S. Supreme Court and the Judicial Review of Congress. New York: Peter Lang, 2008.Law Making in the United States Courts of Appeals. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.Simple Justice. New York: Knopf, 1976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/e309762005-014The Politics of Obscenity. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1990.The Poor in Court. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400861460Nixon's Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226561219.001.0001Congressional Participation as Amicus Curiae before the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing, 2005.Congress and the Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.The Supreme Court and the Presidency. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2013.Federal Courts: Crisis and Reform. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985.Congress versus the Supreme Court. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1961.The Politics of Federal Courts. Boston: Little, Brown, 1970., and .Politics and Judgment in the Federal District Courts. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1996., and .The Solicitor General: The Politics of Law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992.The Supreme Court and Congress. New York: Free Press, 1972., and .The Supreme Court and the Presidency. New York: Free Press, 1971.The Supreme Court and Administrative Agencies. New York: Free Press, 1968.Shaw, Stephen K., William D.Pederson, and Frank J.Williams, eds. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Transformation of the Supreme Court. Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 2004.Supreme Power. New York: W.W. Norton Press, 2009.The Wall of Separation: Constitutional Politics of Church and State. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976.Public Debate over Controversial Supreme Court Decisions. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2006.Caucasians Only. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959.Litigating Federalism: The States before the U.S. Supreme Court. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1999., and .Congress, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court. Boston: Little, Brown, 1925.Race Relations Litigation in an Age of Complexity. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1995.Popular Justice: Presidential Prestige and Executive Success in the Supreme Court. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002.[Page 812]The Will of the People. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009.Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400830602, and .The Votes That Counted. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.Reporting on the Courts. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1998.Public Reaction to Supreme Court Decisions. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509827Public Opinion and the Supreme Court. New York: Longman, 1989.The Priestly Tribe: The Supreme Court's Image in the American Mind. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 1999.Keeping the Faith: A Cultural History of the U.S. Supreme Court. Lanham, Md: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998.Television News and the Supreme Court: All the News That's Fit to Air?New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625565, and .The End of Inequality. New York: W. W. Norton, 2008and .Unlikely Heroes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981. Reprint. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1990.Becker, Theodore L., ed. The Impact of Supreme Court Decisions. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969.Becker, Theodore L., and MalcolmFeeley, eds. The Impact of Supreme Court Decisions.2d ed.New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.Bullock, Charles S., III, and Charles M.Lamb, eds. Implementation of Civil Rights Policy. Monterey, Calif: Brooks-Cole, 1984.Abortion and American Politics. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House, 1993., and .The School Prayer Decisions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971., and .The Nature of Supreme Court Power. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact., and .2d ed.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1998.Rights at Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.Fifty-eight Lonely Men: Southern Federal Judges and School Desegregation. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1961.The Hollow Hope,2d ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226726687.001.0001Merely Judgment. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press. 2010.The Ghost of Jim Crow. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195181746.001.0001The Impact of the United States Supreme Court. Homewood, Ill: Dorsey Press, 1970.