Judicial review by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts: Explaining justices' responses to constitutional challenges

Stefanie Lindquist, Rorie Spill Solberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this article, the authors assess various influences on U.S. Supreme Court justices' behavior in cases involving judicial review of federal, state, and local statutes. Focusing on challenges to the constitutionality of statutes considered by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts during the 1969 to 2000 terms, the authors evaluate the impact of attitudinal, institutional, and contextual variables on individual justices' votes to strike or uphold statutes challenged before the Court. The authors find that the justices' ideological responses to the challenged statutes, the extent of amicus support for the statute, the support of the solicitor general, congressional preferences, and the existence of a civil liberties challenge to the statute are all significantly related to the justices' votes to invalidate or uphold statutes. They also find that in the Rehnquist Court, conservative justices are less likely to strike state statutes but more likely to strike federal laws than their liberal counterparts, while no similar "federalism" dimension emerges in the Burger Court. Indeed, in the Burger Court, a distinct pattern emerges with conservative justices more restraintist than liberal justices in both state and federal cases.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)71-90
Number of pages20
JournalPolitical Research Quarterly
Volume60
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

statute
justice
voter
constitutionality
federal law
federal state
federalism
Supreme Court

Keywords

  • Constitutional challenges
  • Federalism
  • Judicial review
  • U.S. Supreme Court

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Judicial review by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts : Explaining justices' responses to constitutional challenges. / Lindquist, Stefanie; Solberg, Rorie Spill.

In: Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 60, No. 1, 03.2007, p. 71-90.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e6016885563547c0820f5c21a528c3d4,
title = "Judicial review by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts: Explaining justices' responses to constitutional challenges",
abstract = "In this article, the authors assess various influences on U.S. Supreme Court justices' behavior in cases involving judicial review of federal, state, and local statutes. Focusing on challenges to the constitutionality of statutes considered by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts during the 1969 to 2000 terms, the authors evaluate the impact of attitudinal, institutional, and contextual variables on individual justices' votes to strike or uphold statutes challenged before the Court. The authors find that the justices' ideological responses to the challenged statutes, the extent of amicus support for the statute, the support of the solicitor general, congressional preferences, and the existence of a civil liberties challenge to the statute are all significantly related to the justices' votes to invalidate or uphold statutes. They also find that in the Rehnquist Court, conservative justices are less likely to strike state statutes but more likely to strike federal laws than their liberal counterparts, while no similar {"}federalism{"} dimension emerges in the Burger Court. Indeed, in the Burger Court, a distinct pattern emerges with conservative justices more restraintist than liberal justices in both state and federal cases.",
keywords = "Constitutional challenges, Federalism, Judicial review, U.S. Supreme Court",
author = "Stefanie Lindquist and Solberg, {Rorie Spill}",
year = "2007",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1177/1065912906298579",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "60",
pages = "71--90",
journal = "Political Research Quarterly",
issn = "1065-9129",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Judicial review by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts

T2 - Explaining justices' responses to constitutional challenges

AU - Lindquist, Stefanie

AU - Solberg, Rorie Spill

PY - 2007/3

Y1 - 2007/3

N2 - In this article, the authors assess various influences on U.S. Supreme Court justices' behavior in cases involving judicial review of federal, state, and local statutes. Focusing on challenges to the constitutionality of statutes considered by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts during the 1969 to 2000 terms, the authors evaluate the impact of attitudinal, institutional, and contextual variables on individual justices' votes to strike or uphold statutes challenged before the Court. The authors find that the justices' ideological responses to the challenged statutes, the extent of amicus support for the statute, the support of the solicitor general, congressional preferences, and the existence of a civil liberties challenge to the statute are all significantly related to the justices' votes to invalidate or uphold statutes. They also find that in the Rehnquist Court, conservative justices are less likely to strike state statutes but more likely to strike federal laws than their liberal counterparts, while no similar "federalism" dimension emerges in the Burger Court. Indeed, in the Burger Court, a distinct pattern emerges with conservative justices more restraintist than liberal justices in both state and federal cases.

AB - In this article, the authors assess various influences on U.S. Supreme Court justices' behavior in cases involving judicial review of federal, state, and local statutes. Focusing on challenges to the constitutionality of statutes considered by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts during the 1969 to 2000 terms, the authors evaluate the impact of attitudinal, institutional, and contextual variables on individual justices' votes to strike or uphold statutes challenged before the Court. The authors find that the justices' ideological responses to the challenged statutes, the extent of amicus support for the statute, the support of the solicitor general, congressional preferences, and the existence of a civil liberties challenge to the statute are all significantly related to the justices' votes to invalidate or uphold statutes. They also find that in the Rehnquist Court, conservative justices are less likely to strike state statutes but more likely to strike federal laws than their liberal counterparts, while no similar "federalism" dimension emerges in the Burger Court. Indeed, in the Burger Court, a distinct pattern emerges with conservative justices more restraintist than liberal justices in both state and federal cases.

KW - Constitutional challenges

KW - Federalism

KW - Judicial review

KW - U.S. Supreme Court

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34547842648&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34547842648&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1065912906298579

DO - 10.1177/1065912906298579

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:34547842648

VL - 60

SP - 71

EP - 90

JO - Political Research Quarterly

JF - Political Research Quarterly

SN - 1065-9129

IS - 1

ER -