This course provides an introduction to the study of law and courts as political institutions and judges as political actors. Topics include judicial behavior and policymaking, the politics of selecting judges, the role of public opinion in shaping judicial doctrine, and the impact of courts on society. The primary institutional focus is the U.S. Supreme Court, but we also study other courts, including the state supreme courts and lower federal courts. Because this is an American Pluralism course, a major objective is to increase knowledge of how reform groups have used the courts to combat discrimination based on race, sex, and sexual orientation. As a Methods-Intensive course, it is also designed to familiarize you with methods of conducting research about the courts.
Fall 2019
Hume, Robert J. 2018. Judicial Behavior and Policymaking: An
Introduction. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
O’Brien, David M. 2017. Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American
Politics. Eleventh Edition. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Rosenberg, Gerald N. 2008.
The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About
Social Change? Second Edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Discussion Board Posts:
Due on 9/3, 9/10, 9/24, 10/11, 10/29, 11/12, and 11/19,
as indicated by a (*).
Module I: Introduction Courts
of Law or Justice?
What is the proper role of courts in American
society? Reform groups routinely turn to courts to address public policy
problems, shaping policy on the subject of race, ethnicity, class, religion,
gender, or sexual orientation. However, there has been much debate over the
appropriateness of judges assuming this role. Empirically, it is also unclear
whether judges are effective policymakers. We begin the course by engaging
these debates, taking a closer look at the range of things that judges do
in the legal system.
Unit
1: The Supreme Court as a National Policymaker
8/30 Introduction
9/3* Judges
as Policymakers: Hume, Chapter 1
Unit
2: Behind the Scenes at the U.S. Supreme Court
9/6 The Supreme Court in American
Politics: O’Brien, Chapters 1 & 3
9/10* Deciding
Cases and Writing Opinions: O’Brien, Chapter 5
Module II: Theories of
Judicial Behavior
The conventional wisdom is that judges
decide cases based on an objective application of legal principles to the facts
of disputes. However, there is considerable evidence that judicial behavior is
influenced by the ideology of judges, their personal background
characteristics, and their other experiences. This unit of the course explores
the theoretical arguments and evidence for different models of judicial
behavior and discusses their normative implications.
Unit
3: The Attitudinal Model
9/13 Overview of the Attitudinal Model:
Hume, Chapter 2: pp. 33-44; 60-63 (Holmes, “The Path of the Law”)
9/17 Evidence for the Attitudinal Model
I: Hume, Chapter 2, pp. 44-53; Blackboard (Segal & Spaeth, Part I:
86-97; 312-327)
9/20 Evidence for the Attitudinal Model
II: Blackboard (Segal & Spaeth, Part II: 357-81)
Unit
4: Social Background Theory
9/24* Social Background Theory – Hume,
Chapter 2, pp. 54-56; Blackboard (Tate, “Personal Attribute Models of the
Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices”)
9/27 Gender and Judging – Blackboard
(Davis, Haire, & Songer, “Voting Behavior and Gender on the U.S. Courts of
Appeals”; Glynn & Sen, “Identifying Judicial Empathy: Does Having Daughters
Cause Judges to Rule for Women’s Issues?”)
10/1 Race and Judging: – Hume,
Chapter 2, pp. 63-68 (Schuette v.
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action); Blackboard (Kastellec, “Racial
Diversity and Judicial Influence on Appellate Courts”; Sen, “Is Justice Really
Blind? Race and Reversal in the US Courts”)
Unit 5: The Legal Model
10/4 Overview of the Legal Model: Hume,
Chapter 3: pp. 69-73, 95-98 (Kozinski, “What I Ate for Breakfast and Other
Mysteries of Judicial Decision Making”)
10/8 Evidence for the Legal Model I:
Hume, Chapter 3: pp. 73-80, 99-102 (Planned
Parenthood v. Casey; Blackboard (Segal & Spaeth, Part III:)
10/11* Evidence for the Legal Model II: Hume,
Chapter 3: pp. 80-90. Blackboard (Lindquist & Klein, “The Influence of
Jurisprudential Considerations on Supreme Court Decisionmaking”)
10/15 Midterm
Exam
Unit 6: The Strategic Model
10/18 Overview of the Strategic Model: Hume,
Chapter 4: pp. 103-107; 129-133 (Baker v.
Vermont), 133-136 (Amestoy, “Pragmatic Constitutionalism”)
10/22 Internal Strategies: Hume,
Chapter 4: pp. 107-116, 120-123; Blackboard (Wahlbeck, Spriggs, and Maltzman,
“Marshalling the Court”)
10/25 Separation-of-Powers Models:
Hume, Chapter 4: pp. 116-120; Blackboard (Segal,
Westerland, and Lindquist, “Congress, the Supreme Court, and Judicial Review”)
·
Assignment 1 Due on 10/25
Module
III: Courts and the American Public
To what extent are courts responsive
to public opinion? In many states, the people elect judges, but research
suggests that even appointed judges might be responsive to changes in public
opinion. This research is divided, however, over whether appointed judges
respond directly to shifts in the public mood or they respond indirectly
through the appointment process. Still other research suggests that the
influence of the public on judging is not uniform—the “haves” possess certain
structural advantages in the American legal system that ensure that their
interests are more likely to be reflected in the development of law and policy.
We examine evidence about the relationship between courts and the American
public and discuss whether the effective assistance of counsel has the
potential to improve conditions for “have nots.”
Unit
7: Selecting and Retaining Judges
10/29* Judicial Selection and Retention:
Overview – Hume, Chapter 5
11/1 Supreme Court Confirmation – O’Brien,
Chapter 2
Unit 8: The Direct Impact of Public
Opinion
11/5 The Direct Influence of Public
Opinion – Hume, Chapter 6: pp. 171-180, 192-196 (Roper v. Simmons)
11/8 Haves v. Have Nots – Hume, pp.
180-184; Blackboard (Galanter, “Why
the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead”)
·
Assignment 2 Due on 11/8
11/12* Litigants and Lawyers – Hume, pp.
184-187, 196-199 (Padilla v. Kentucky);
Blackboard (McGuire, “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court”)
Module IV: The Impact of
Courts
Can courts be effective agents of
social change? Reform groups have frequently turned to courts to protect
minority rights, but skeptics doubt that courts can produce needed change without
support from the other branches—or the public. We will study the impact of
courts by looking at how judges have influenced social policy in several highly
salient issue areas. Of particular interest is how the institutional design of
courts influences the potential for judges to act as reform agents, especially
in state judicial systems.
Unit
9: The Dynamic Court Model
11/15 The
Dynamic Court Model – Hume, Chapter 7: pp. 201-209, 225-227 (Federalist 78),
227-228 (Brown II); skim O’Brien,
Chapter 6
Unit 10: The Constrained Court Model
11/19* The
Constrained Court Model – Hume, Chapter 7: pp. 209-14, Rosenberg, pp. 1-36
11/22 The
Impact of Brown – Rosenberg, pp.
39-71; 107-156
·
Assignment 3 Due on 11/22
11/26 The
Impact of Roe – Rosenberg, pp.
173-201; 228-246
Unit 11: Other Theories of Judicial
Impact
12/3 The
Backlash Thesis – Hume, Chapter 7: pp. 214-215, Blackboard (Klarman, “How Brown Changed Race Relations: The
Backlash Thesis”)
12/6 The Impact of State Supreme Courts
– Hume, Chapter 7: pp. 215-220; Blackboard (Hume, “Policy Initiation”)
·
Assignment 4 Due on 12/6
FINAL EXAM: TBA
COURSE POLICIES
Course Design/Blackboard
Integration. Supplementary
readings and other course materials are available online via Blackboard,
located within the tabs for the corresponding Modules. If you have trouble
accessing Blackboard, be sure to contact the instructor as soon as possible.
All written work, including papers and discussion board postings, are submitted
via Blackboard.
Participation. Participation is an essential
component of this course (10%). Students will not receive a satisfactory
participation grade simply by attending: regular, thoughtful participation is
required.
Discussion Board Postings.
Students will periodically
complete one-paragraph discussion board posting, which altogether are worth 10%
of your final course grade. The dates are marked with an (*) above, and the
questions are on Blackboard. These postings count as virtual participation and
are meant to be informal and provoke discussion. You may be asked to comment on
your discussion board postings in class, so be sure to have them done before
class on the due dates.
Term Paper. The major assignment for the course is
a term paper that you will complete in four installments over the semester, and
which will be worth 30% of the final course grade. You can find details about
the paper in the Assignments tab on Blackboard. It is important that you do not
work too far ahead, or turn in assignments much earlier than when they are due,
because they are designed to build off of work that we are completing in class.
Attendance: Attendance at all class meetings is
mandatory unless an absence is excused in advance. An unexcused absence will
result in a reduction of your participation grade.
Missed Exams/Papers. Exams will not be rescheduled except
under extraordinary circumstances, and not unless arranged in advance. The same
policy applies to papers. Legitimate excuses may include medical conditions
(with appropriate documentation), family emergencies (with a dean’s excuse), or
direct conflicts with other exams. You may not reschedule assignments because
you feel tired, stressed, or overworked, so budget your time carefully.
Academic Integrity. Under no circumstances will cheating
or plagiarism be tolerated. Plagiarism includes (but is not limited to) copying
all or part of another student’s work, copying (or closely paraphrasing) all or
part of another source without proper attribution (including internet sources),
and incorrectly attributing sources. To enforce the University’s standards for
academic integrity, all students are required to submit their written
assignments via Blackboard’s SafeAssign.
Disability Services. If you have a documented disability
and require academic accommodations, please register with the Office of
Disability Services for Students (ODS) to request accommodations for your
courses. Please contact the main ODS number at (718) 817-0655 to arrange
services. Accommodations are not retroactive, so you need to register with ODS
prior to receiving them. Please see me after class or during office hours if
you have questions or would like to submit your academic accommodation letter
to me if you have previously registered for accommodations.
Preferred Name/Pronoun
Policy. The
Department of Political Science affirms as part of our mission that we value
and accord respect to all of our students. Therefore, instructors in our
department are asked to call students by their preferred names and preferred
pronouns. Please let your instructor know your preferred name and preferred
pronouns in person or over email.
No comments:
Post a Comment