This study investigated whether or not the membership of the United States Supreme Court affects the way the institution rules in cases regarding federal administrative agencies by collecting and comparing votes from 2018-2019 and 2020-2022. It found in the first section that justices showed an anti-deferential attitude towards agencies and in the second section a deferential attitude towards agencies, despite the conservative majority being larger in the second section. The result is likely due to the types of agencies and content of cases involved.

The influence of ideology and attitudes on the decision-making process of Supreme Court justices has been well documented, such that the attitudinal model has emerged as the dominant paradigm for understanding judicial behavior. When ideology and personal preferences seem to eclipse legal factors, such as adherence to precedent and deference to the democratically-elected branches, outcries of 'judicial activism' have occurred. Previous studies (Lindquist and Cross 2009) have operationalized judicial activism and have provided measures for studying behavior that may be considered activist (as opposed to restrainist), further supporting the premise that ideology trumps other extra-attitudinal and legal factors in the judicial decision-making process. While the attitudinal model indicates that ideology is the strongest predictor of judicial decision-making, this research will include a number of legal variables that have significantly influenced justices' votes. As previous studies have demonstrated, an integrated model that combines a number of critical variables can have more explanatory power than one that relies on attitudinal reasons alone (Banks 1999; Hurwitz and Stefko 2004; Mishler and Sheehan 1996). As such, the purpose of this research is to examine individual level decision-making of the most ideological justices on the Burger and Rehnquist Courts (1969-2004) in regards to their activist behavior to overrule legal precedents and invalidate federal statutes. This research will employ multivariate regression analysis to assess the effects of attitudinal, legal and extra-attitudinal factors in the judicial decision-making process.

No description available.

A woman’s right to choose to have an abortion has been constitutionally protected since 1973 when, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that the state may not wholly restrict a woman’s choice to terminate a pregnancy. In Roe, the Court invoked the 14th Amendment’s imprecise guarantee of personal liberty as grounds for the right to terminate a pregnancy without excessive interference. In later cases, specifically Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Court clarified that mere possession of the right to abortion is insufficient to guarantee personal liberty– abortion seekers must be able to exercise their right, free of “undue burdens.” According to Casey, statutes which pose an undue burden to the right to an abortion violate the Constitution. This thesis considers whether the burdens placed on abortion seekers in Florida are constitutional or a violation of the 14th Amendment guarantee to equal protection under the law. In order to measure the diversity in burdens faced by abortion-seekers, I collect data on all 67 counties across Florida, guided by the Court’s definition of relevant variables for the purpose of abortion access: the number of providers, the availability of a judicial bypass of restrictions, and the physical distance to clinics. This data is combined in a single statistic, which is called the Unde Burden Score. There is tremendous variation in the score across Florida counties, posing a challenge to the promise of equal protection under the law and for those attempting to exercise their reproductive rights. The findings suggest that Florida’s intrastate access to abortion is incredibly contingent on geographic location, suggesting that the equal right to abortion exists in theory, but not in practice.

This dissertation explores the pragmatic implications of judicial rhetoric found in a 1988 Supreme Court decision, i.e., this is a dissertation about public administration using constitutional law to illuminate an administrative question. My viewpoint is a legal/constitutional one which uses the law as pedagogue to inform public administration and to offer a useful message for the public administration practitioner. That message deals with a legal/constitutional distinction between publicness and privateness and the implications of that distinction. Quincy West was sentenced to prison in 1973 for armed robbery. While in prison he suffered a torn Achilles tendon for which he received inadequate medical care. After numerous attempts to obtain medical care, West filed suit against the prison physician contractor in federal courts for cruel and unusual punishment. This dissertation uses the story of West's legal efforts and the Supreme Court's decision in his case to discuss the broad implications of that decision for the public administration practitioner and government contractors. The lens is a constitutional one. The framework is John Rohr's schema for understanding a Supreme Court case: viewing that case from the institutional, concrete, dialectical, and pertinent perspectives. The specifics of West's allegations against his physician invite discussions of bioethical topics such as informed consent and medical legal topics such as malpractice and patient abandonment. The Court's determination of state action in West v. Atkins (1988) requires discussion of the administrative areas of contracts and grants administration as well as risk management. The complex responsibilities of the public administration practitioner are examined, as is his or her need to follow and independently learn from the messages included in the courts' interpretation of the law. This historic story illustrates that there is no bright line between law and policy. The Court's dialogue with itself is not merely interpretation and development of the law - it is policy reformulation. For this reason, among others, the conscientious administrator must monitor the Court's ongoing dialogue and listen attentively to its messages of import for our field and our practice. / Ph. D.

The Federalist Society, acting as a Political Epistemic Network, has effectively employed a long-term strategy to engineer a Supreme Court that propagates conservative legal ideology. The organizational structure of the Federalist Society finds, recruits, and retain members who will wield the organizational strategies of the organizations to achieve policy outcomes not just for members of the organization, but for the greater population. This thesis demonstrates a clear relationship between the long-term ideological and institutional influence of the Federalist Society and the U.S. Supreme Court. This significant relationship poses a fundamental threat to the execution of equal protection under the law and an erosion of democratic norms. This thesis proposes possible legislative and constitutional remedies to counter the increasing polarization of the Supreme Court, including proposed reforms such as term limits and restructuring the court which could make inroads to promoting neutrality on the Court and re-establishing a greater degree of public trust. / Master of Arts / The modern Supreme Court must contend with an unprecedented degree of outside influence from ideologically driven special interest groups. Since 1982, there is no outside special interest group of more consequence than the Federalist Society. Modern special interest groups can boast deeper financial reserves, decades of relationship with policy makers, and ideological motivations that are not simply deeply held, but singularly motivating. This is particularly true for the Federalist Society. The conservative legal movement has effectively employed a long-term strategy to shape the Court in its own image, minimizing a reliance on an electorate that is more diverse and historically less likely to embrace conservative principles. Above any other political ally or mechanism, that strategy and its implementation has relied on the commitment, financing, and participation of the Federalist Society. This thesis examines the breadth and consequences of the Federalist Society's influence on the modern Court and proposes theoretical reforms that could help ensure a more ideologically balanced court.

Amicus curiae participation by interest groups has greatly increased over the past few decades in the Supreme Court despite a limited understanding of their influence. Previous literature has suggested that at the U.S. Supreme Court level, interest groups as amici are no more likely to get justices votes in a liberal or conservative direction than when no amicus brief is provided. Some literature, however, suggests that there are certain types of cases in which amicus briefs may be influential, such as in constitutional, statutory, and civil rights cases. By conducting several comparisons of means tests for the number of justice votes in a certain ideological direction with and without an amicus brief, this study investigates the influence of briefs on justice votes in civil rights and economic cases. The findings support the previous literature that suggests briefs are no more likely to be related to an increased number of votes in the direction of the brief, but finds that civil rights cases may be positively affected by amicus briefs while economic cases are negatively affected. This thesis concludes by explaining that the content of the briefs submitted should change in order to be more effective in influencing justices or that interest groups should use their efforts in other avenues to impact policy. / Master of Arts

During periods of turmoil when ideological preferences between the federal branches of government fail to align, the relationship between the three quickly turns tumultuous. Electoral realignments especially have the potential to increase tension between the branches. When a new party replaces the 'old order' in both the legislature and the executive branches, the possibility for conflict emerges with the Court. Justices who make decisions based on old regime preferences of the party that had appointed them to the bench will likely clash with the new ideological preferences of the incoming party. In these circumstances, the president or Congress may seek to weaken the influence of the Court through court-curbing methods. One example Congress may utilize is changing the actual size of the Supreme The size of the Supreme Court has increased four times in United States history, and three out of the four alterations happened after an electoral realignment. Through analysis of Supreme Court cases, this thesis seeks to determine if, after an electoral realignment, holdings of the Court on issues of policy were more congruent with the new party in power after the change in composition as well to examine any change in individual vote tallies of the justices driven by the voting behavior of the newly appointed justice(s). / Master of Arts

In 1964 the Civil Rights Act was passed into law. Title VII of this act provided a means for equal opportunities and treatment in employment practices for all individuals regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. However, the inclusion of sex into the provision was not meant to deliver rights to women and did not afford women an effective means to seek protection from sexual harassment in employment. Sexual harassment limits women in their economic position and subjects women to unjust treatment in the workplace. National standards for sexual harassment originated with the Supreme Court's decision in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson which provided that sexual harassment was a form of sex discrimination protected by Title VII. Researching if the Court develops sexual harassment case law in a manner that accounts for feminist principles in regard to women, sex, and gender, it is determined whether the Supreme Court contributes positively to women's progress in employment and in tum advances feminist goals.

The theory proposed here is that the Supreme Court behaves in a strategic manner at the agenda-setting stage in order to vote sincerely on the merits. To test this, I measure the impact issue salience and ideological distance between Congress and the Supreme Court has on the agenda. The results indicate that whether the Supreme Court behaves either sincerely or strategically depends on the policy area. The strategic nature of the Supreme Court at the agenda-setting phase may be in large part why some research shows that the Court behaves sincerely when voting on the merits. By behaving strategically at the agenda-setting phase, the Court is free to vote sincerely in later parts of the judicial process.