Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Pulling Punches

Congressional Constraints on the Supreme Court's Constitutional Rulings, 1987–2000

Bibliographic Data

ID6300541
AuthorsAnna Harvey (0000-0003-3743-3603, New York University), Barry Friedman (0000-0003-2455-7121, New York University)
Year2006
Volume31
Issue4
Pages533-562
Publication date2006-11-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueLegislative Studies Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0362-9805 • E-ISSN: 1939-9162
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.3162/036298006x201922
OpenAlexW2008911932
LanguageEN
Citations received49
References cited43

To date, no study has found evidence that the U.S. Supreme Court is constrained by Congress in its constitutional decisions. We addressed the selection bias inherent in previous studies with a statute‐centered, rather than a case‐centered, analysis, following all congressional laws enacted between 1987 and 2000. We uncovered considerable congressional constraint in the Court's constitutional rulings. In particular, we found that the probability that the Rehnquist Court would strike a liberal congressional law rose between 47% and 288% as a result of the 1994 congressional elections, depending on the legislative model used

Constitutional law · Constraint (computer-aided design · Legislature · Political science · Statute · Supreme court · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal and Constitutional Studies · Mathematics

  • National Policy Preferences and Judicial Review of State Statutes at the United States Supreme Court

    Stefanie A Lindquist, Pamela C Corley•Publius The Journal of Federalism•2012

  • When do governments attack the judiciary? The explanatory power of political corruption

    Open Access•Aylin Aydin-Cakir, Ebru İlter Akarçay•International Review of Law and…•2025

  • Understanding Judicial Power

    Open Access•Matthew E K Hall, Jason H Windett•Journal of Law and Courts•2015

  • Stepping on Congress

    Open Access•Forrest Maltzman, Alyx Mark et al.•Journal of Law and Courts•2014

  • Blurring Institutional Boundaries

    Open Access•Alyx Mark, Michael A Zilis•Journal of Law and Courts•2018

  • Lower Courts in Interbranch Conflict

    Open Access•Joshua A Strayhorn•Journal of Law and Courts•2021

  • A Separation-of-Powers Approach to the Supreme Court’s Shrinking Caseload

    Open Access•Elizabeth A Lane•Journal of Law and Courts•2021

  • On Separation of Powers and Obfuscation in US Supreme Court Opinions

    Open Access•Daniel Lempert•Journal of Law and Courts•2022

  • Case Salience and the Influence of External Constraints on the Supreme Court

    Open Access•Logan Strother•Journal of Law and Courts•2018

  • Testing Legislative Deferral

    Open Access•Jonathan Parent•Journal of Law and Courts•2018

  • The case for the international governance of immigration

    Open Access•Javier Hidalgo•International Theory•2015

  • A Case for Supreme Court Term Limits? The Changing Ideological Relationship between Appointing Presidents and Supreme Court Justices

    Open Access•Hemant Sharma, Colin Glennon•Politics & Policy•2013

  • Preserving Institutional Power

    Open Access•Bryan W Marshall, Brett Curry et al.•Politics & Policy•2014

  • The Impact of Divided Government on the Supreme Court Appointment Process

    Open Access•Hemant Sharma, John M Scheb•Politics & Policy•2011

  • Judicial Independence as an Organizing Principle

    Open Access•Charles Gardner Geyh•Annual Review of Law and Social…•2014

  • The Strategic Analysis of Judicial Decisions

    Open Access•Lee Epstein, Tonja Jacobi•Annual Review of Law and Social…•2010

  • Congress, the Supreme Court, and Judicial Review

    Open Access•Jeffrey A Segal, Chad Westerland et al.•American Journal of Political…•2010

  • Parliamentary Constraints on Constitutional Review in the Supreme Court of Canada

    Open Access•Brendan Dell, Paul J Gardner et al.•Canadian Journal of Political…•2026

  • Judicial Review as a Limit on Government Domination

    Open Access•Matthew E K Hall•Perspectives on Politics•2016

  • Keeping the Outliers in Line? Judicial Review of State Laws by the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Matthew E K Hall, Ryan C Black•Social Science Quarterly•2013

  • The Conditioning Role of Judicial Independence in the Exercise of Judicial Review

    Open Access•Garrett N Vande Kamp•Journal of Law and Courts•2021

  • Justices and Legal Clarity

    Open Access•Ryan J Owens, Justin Wedeking et al.•Law & Society Review•2011

  • An Analysis of Policy-Based Congressional Responses to the U.S. Supreme Court's Constitutional Decisions

    Open Access•Bethany Blackstone•Law & Society Review•2013

  • Understanding the Role of the European Court of Justice in European Integration

    Open Access•CLIFFORD J CARRUBA, Matthew Gabel et al.•American Political Science Review•2012

  • Judicial Behavior under Political Constraints

    Open Access•Clifford J Carrubba, Matthew Gabel et al.•American Political Science Review•2008

  • Does Legal Doctrine Matter? Unpacking Law and Policy Preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Michael A Bailey, Forrest Maltzman•American Political Science Review•2008

  • Judges, Conflict, and the Past

    Open Access•Kieran Mcevoy, Alex Schwartz•Journal of Law and Society•2015

  • O Supremo Tribunal Federal

    Fernando Ramalho Ney Montenegro Bentes•2015

  • Judicial Majoritarianism

    Matthew E K Hall, Joseph Daniel Ura•The Journal of Politics•2015

  • A Model of the Endogenous Development of Judicial Institutions in Federal and International Systems

    Clifford J Carrubba•The Journal of Politics•2009

  • Presidential Constraints on Supreme Court Decision-Making

    Paul J Gardner, Paul Gardner et al.•The Journal of Politics•2023

  • Ducking Trouble

    Anna Harvey, Barry Friedman•The Journal of Politics•2009

  • Separation of Powers

    Tara Ginnane•Polity•2021

  • Trends

    Open Access•Ben Johnson, Benjamin D Johnson et al.•Political Research Quarterly•2021

  • The Conditional Effectiveness of Legislative Threats

    Open Access•Alyx Mark, Michael A Zilis•Political Research Quarterly•2019

  • Restraining the Court

    Open Access•Alyx Mark, Michael A Zilis•Legislative Studies Quarterly•2018

  • The varying effect of court-curbing

    Open Access•Aylin Aydin-Cakir•Journal of European Public Policy•2024

  • Judicial Independence and Political Uncertainty

    Open Access•Olof Larsson, Daniel Naurin•International Organization•2016

  • Notwithstanding Centralism

    Open Access•Geoffrey Sigalet, Dave Snow•Canadian Journal of Political…•2025

  • Reconsidering Judicial Preferences

    Lee Epstein, Jack Knight•Annual Review of Political Science•2013

  • Constitutional Courts in Comparative Perspective

    Georg Vanberg•Annual Review of Political Science•2015

  • Regimes and the Rule of Law

    Gretchen Helmke, Frances Mccall Rosenbluth et al.•Annual Review of Political Science•2009

  • Polarization and the Judiciary

    Richard L Hasen•Annual Review of Political Science•2019

  • Comparable Preference Estimates across Time and Institutions for the Court, Congress, and Presidency

    Open Access•Michael A Bailey•American Journal of Political…•2007

  • The Separation of Powers and Supreme Court Agenda Setting

    Open Access•Ryan J Owens•American Journal of Political…•2010

  • The Separation of Powers, Court Curbing, and Judicial Legitimacy

    Open Access•Tom S Clark•American Journal of Political…•2009

  • Ideological Polarization on the Supreme Court

    Open Access•Donald Michael Gooch•American Politics Research•2015

  • Supreme Court Oral Arguments and Institutional Maintenance

    Open Access•Eve M Ringsmuth, Timothy R Johnson•American Politics Research•2013

  • Judicial Independence across Democratic Regimes

    Open Access•Aylin Aydın, Aylin Aydin-Cakir•Law & Society Review•2013

  • Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House

    David W Rohde•Parties and leaders in the…•1991

  • The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited

    Open Access•Jeffrey A Segal, Harold J Spaeth•Supreme Court and the Attitudinal…•2002

  • Why Parties?

    John H Aldrich•Why Parties?•1995

  • Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-Nested Hypotheses

    Quang Vuong, Quang H Vuong•Econometrica•1989

  • Congressional Influence on Bureaucracy

    J Ferejohn, Charles R Shipan et al.•The Journal of Law Economics and…•1990

  • Congressional Control or Judicial Independence

    Open Access•Pablo T Spiller, Rafael Gely•The RAND Journal of Economics•1992

  • Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions

    William N Eskridge•The Yale Law Journal•1991

  • A positive theory of statutory interpretation

    Open Access•John Ferejohn, John A Ferejohn et al.•International Review of Law and…•1992

  • The Independent Judiciary in an Interest-Group Perspective

    William M Landes, Richard A Posner•The Journal of Law and Economics•1975

  • Partial likelihood

    D R Cox•Biometrika•1975

  • Pivotal Politics

    Keith Krehbiel•Pivotal Politics•1998

  • The tempting of America

    Robert H Bork•Choice Reviews Online•1990

  • Information and Judicial Review

    James R Rogers•American Journal of Political…•2001

  • Judicial Review and Coordinate Construction of the Constitution

    James Meernik, Joseph Ignagni•American Journal of Political…•1997

  • Taking Time Seriously

    Niels Beck, Nathaniel Beck et al.•American Journal of Political…•1998

  • Recovering a Basic Space From a Set of Issue Scales

    Keith T Poole•American Journal of Political…•1998

  • Explaining the Overruling of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent

    James F Spriggs, James F Spriggs James F Spriggs et al.•The Journal of Politics•2001

  • Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999

    Open Access•A D Martins, Andrew D Martin et al.•Political Analysis•2002

  • Explaining the Incidence and Timing of Congressional Responses to the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Virginia A Hettinger, Christopher Zorn•Legislative Studies Quarterly•2005

  • Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices

    Open Access•Jeffrey A Segal, Albert D Cover•American Political Science Review•1989

  • The Hollow Hope

    Gerald N Rosenberg•The Hollow Hope•1993

  • Judicial Independence and the Reality of Political Power

    Open Access•Gerald N Rosenberg, Gerald Rosenberg•The Review of Politics•1992

  • Procedural Choice and the House Committee on Rules

    Douglas Dion, John D Huber•The Journal of Politics•1996

  • Designing Tests of the Supreme Court and the Separation of Powers

    Open Access•Brian R Sala, James F Spriggs•Political Research Quarterly•2004

  • Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data

    Open Access•Gary King, Langche Zeng•Political Analysis•2001

  • Modeling Supreme Court Strategic Decision Making

    Open Access•Mario Bergara, Barak D Richman et al.•Legislative Studies Quarterly•2003

  • Cosponsors and Wafflers from A to Z

    Keith Krehbiel•American Journal of Political…•1995

  • The Analysis of Committee Power

    Keith Krehbiel, Douglas Rivers•American Journal of Political…•1988

  • Making the Most of Statistical Analyses

    Gary King, Michael Tomz et al.•American Journal of Political…•2000

  • Measuring Political Preferences

    Lee Epstein, Carol Mershon•American Journal of Political…•1996

  • Restrictive Rules Reconsidered

    Keith Krehbiel•American Journal of Political…•1997

  • Sense and Sensibility

    Douglas Dion, John D Huber•American Journal of Political…•1997

  • Where's the Party

    Open Access•Keith Krehbiel•British Journal of Political…•1993

  • Congressional Decision Making and the Separation of Powers

    Open Access•A D Martins, Andrew D Martin•American Political Science Review•2001

  • Why are Congressional Committees Powerful

    Open Access•Keith Krehbiel, Kenneth A Shepsle et al.•American Political Science Review•1987

  • The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power

    Open Access•Kenneth A Shepsle, Barry R Weingast•American Political Science Review•1987

  • Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts

    Open Access•Jeffrey A Segal•American Political Science Review•1997

  • An Analytic and Empirical Examination of Zero-Inflated and Hurdle Poisson Specifications

    Open Access•Christopher J W Zorn, Christopher Zorn•Sociological Methods & Research•1998

Unique citing works49
Citations per year2,58
Citation span2007 - 2026 (20)
Citation velocitycurrent
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 49

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae