POL S341 Notes: Judicial Decision-Making - Comprehensive Summary

Judicial Review

• Judicial review is the power of courts to invalidate actions of other branches of government, including laws passed by legislatures and executive actions from presidents, governors, and administrative agencies (including police).
• It is NOT written in the Constitution.
• Created by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison ($1803$).
• It is a unique power across many courts around the world: Courts can enforce amendments and other constitutional provisions, as well as interpret laws.

Attitudinal Model

• Origin: Harold Spaeth and Jeffrey Segal, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model.
• Core claim: Judges follow their ideology; Democrat-appointed judges vote liberal and Republican-appointed judges vote conservative.
• Critiques/nuances:
  • The fact that $40\%$ of cases are unanimous in a Supreme Court term challenges the idea that votes are purely ideological.
  • The thesis seems to hold in major constitutional cases, even if not universally.

The Supreme Court Database

• The SCDB is described as the definitive source for researchers, students, journalists, and citizens interested in the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Contents: Over $200$ pieces of information about each case decided by the Court from the first term ($1791$) through $2021$.
• Examples of data: identity of the court reviewed, parties to the suit, legal provisions considered, votes of the Justices.
• Database versions:
  • Modern Database: $1946-2021$ (released $2022-11-02$)
  • Legacy Database: SCDB Legacy $1791-1945$ (released $2021-10-01$)
• Analysis tools: Allow users to select and summarize cases from Modern or Legacy databases based on user needs.
• Getting started resources:
  • SCDB Web 101 series (online lessons)
  • Codebook (online and downloadable)
• Funding and rights: Supported by the National Science Foundation; Some Rights Reserved.

New Institutionalism

• Core idea: Justices anticipate responses from other branches of government.
• Claim: Courts cannot enforce their own decisions in a vacuum; political and legislative branches can respond to constitutional rulings.
• Mechanisms for overriding or altering rulings:
  • For constitutional rulings, Congress could propose an amendment to override a Supreme Court decision (has happened four times).
  • Example of attempt: Following Texas v. Johnson ($1989$), Congress tried to pass an amendment to ban flag burning.
  • For rulings about laws, a legislature could rewrite or amend the law.
• Illustrative case: United States v. Stevens ($2010$) – led to passage of the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of $2010$ in response to a ruling.

Public Opinion?

• Some authors suggest justices follow public opinion on specific issues.
• Data: Mixed results; abortion and death penalty decisions show variability.
• Implications: This challenges the idea of life tenure and complete judicial independence.
• Perspective: Sometimes there is value in justices transcending public opinion and leading on an issue.

Doctrinal Approaches

• Doctrinal methods include:
  • Precedent: (stare decisis) reliance on prior decisions.
  • Originalism: honoring the original intent of the framers.
  • The Law: adherence to established legal principles.
  • Judicial tests or frameworks (e.g., strict scrutiny).
  • Strategy: consideration of doctrinal strategies in decision-making.

Strategic Approaches

• Case example: Pennsylvania v. Muniz ($1990$).
• Summary of the decision:
  • The Supreme Court offered a kind of split ruling on Miranda rights at a DUI checkpoint.
  • The majority allowed police to ask basic questions without Miranda warnings in some routine contexts.
  • The Court ordered a new trial over one specific non-routine question asked by the officer: asking for the date of the person’s sixth birthday.
• Internal dynamics:
  • The opinion was written by Justice William Brennan (normally liberal), but he joined the majority solely to influence how the opinion was written.
  • In a memo, Brennan suggested that if Justice O’Connor had written the opinion, much of Miranda could be undone.

Constitutional vs. Statutory Cases

• Distinction:
  • Constitutional interpretation: the Supreme Court has the final word; only a constitutional amendment can override this.
  • Statutory interpretation: Congress or a state legislature can rewrite a law to override a Supreme Court decision.
• Implications: It is worth considering whether justices act differently in constitutional cases vs. statutory cases.

Van Buren v. United States ($2021$)

• Facts: A police officer ran a license plate check in exchange for cash; charged with violating the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
• Holding: The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, saying the legislative intent of the law did not apply to this conduct in this context.
• Key distinction: The law was found invalid as applied to the specific conduct, but not necessarily invalid on its face.

Van Buren, cont. (Justice Barrett's Opinion)

• Quote highlights concerns that the Government’s reading could criminalize everyday computer use: “an employee who sends a personal e-mail or reads the news using her work computer has violated the CFAA.”
• The Court recognized that under that interpretation, the statute could criminalize a wide range of ordinary activities (e.g., embellishing an online dating profile, using a pseudonym on Facebook).
• Practical implication: Congress can always rewrite a law to clarify its scope.
• Question raised: Is there a meaningful difference between constitutional interpretation cases and statutory interpretation cases?

Term Limits?

• Scholarly debate centers on:
  • The role of age and term limits for judges.
  • The influence of political ideology on judges.
  • The Sharma-Glennon article discussion of “drift” from the ideology of the appointing president, in line with principles of representative democracy.
• Counter-arguments emphasize separation of powers, checks and balances, and judicial independence.
• Pragmatic concerns: Accidents of death or timing of death could affect judicial tenure.

The Exercise of Judicial Review (Overview)

• Today, judicial review is exercised not only by the Supreme Court but also by other Article III federal courts and state courts.
• It originated as a controversial assertion of power but is now an essential feature of checks and balances.
• In criminal matters, judicial review typically involves both constitutional interpretation and statutory interpretation (what the law means in a given case).
• Example from 2022: The Supreme Court overturned guilty verdicts for two doctors accused of improperly prescribing opioids under the Controlled Substances Act (the statute itself remained intact; the government had not met the required standard of proof under the statute).
• Legislative responses to statutory interpretations exist, as seen in United States v. Stevens ($2010$): the Court struck down a federal law criminalizing depictions of animal cruelty for breadth; Congress then amended the law to include the words “is obscene,” and the Fifth Circuit upheld the revised version in $2015$.
• Constitutional interpretation is the most important function of the Supreme Court, with “the last word” on key constitutional questions.
• Pathways to undo a constitutional interpretation:
  • The Court can overturn its own precedents.
  • Constitutional amendment can overturn a Court decision (four instances):
  • The Eleventh Amendment ($1798$) overturned Chisholm v. Georgia ruling.
  • The Fourteenth Amendment ($1868$) overruled Dred Scott v. Sandford.
  • The Sixteenth Amendment ($1913$) overturned decisions finding a federal income tax unconstitutional.
  • The Twenty-Sixth Amendment ($1971$) lowered the voting age to eighteen; note that Oregon v. Mitchell ($1970$) had held Congress could not lower the voting age in state/local elections.

The Doctrine of Saving Construction

• When a case could involve both statutory and constitutional questions, courts try to avoid constitutional issues by interpreting the statute narrowly (saving construction).
• Example: Osborne v. Ohio ($1990$) – the majority upheld an Ohio law criminalizing possession or viewing material showing a minor in nudity, but limited the interpretation to “lewd exhibition” or “graphic focus on the genitals.”
• The approach avoids broader constitutional questions about censorship that would arise if the statute were applied more broadly.

Jurisprudence: Can an Officer Search a License Plate for a Friend? (Van Buren Context)

• Van Buren v. United States ($593$) (2021): The Court examined the scope of the CFAA’s “exceeds authorized access” clause.
• The decision emphasized that access to information obtained via a computer in the course of work, and for improper purposes, does not automatically make the user a criminal under the CFAA.
• The majority opinion stressed the risk of criminalizing everyday conduct if interpreted too broadly, echoing the concerns cited in the Barrett opinion discussion.
• The ruling underscores that Congress can revise the statute if its scope is judged too broad, reinforcing the distinction between “as applied” vs. “on its face” interpretations.