US Supreme Court will generate greater controversy

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Foreseeable Future ◽  
Court Reform ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Political Backlash

Significance The decision to hold a hearing on this issue, rather than simply issue a decision, reflects a degree of concern about perceptions of the Court’s legitimacy following the transfer of the country’s currently polarised politics onto the Court through recent appointments. Impacts The conservative majority of the Supreme Court is so dominant that no liberal decisions are likely in the foreseeable future. Chief Justice Roberts will try on occasion to moderate the Court’s conservative decision-making but mostly without effect. The recent report from President Joe Biden’s commission on the Supreme Court will prove ineffectual. Upcoming cases will provoke a political backlash among voters and make Court reform a central preoccupation for some Democrats.

scholarly journals The Value of Information in the Court: Get it Right, Keep it Tight

2012 ◽  
Vol 102 (1) ◽  
pp. 202-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matias Iaryczower ◽  
Matthew Shum
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Private Information ◽  
Value Of Information ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Quarter Century ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

We estimate an equilibrium model of decision making in the US Supreme Court that takes into account both private information and ideological differences between justices. We measure the value of information in the court by the probability that a justice votes differently from how she would have voted without case-specific information. Our results suggest a sizable value of information: in 44 percent of cases, justices' initial leanings are changed by their personal assessments of the case. Our results also confirm the increased politicization of the Supreme Court in the last quarter century. Counterfactual simulations provide implications for institutional design. (JEL D72, D82, D83, K10)

US Supreme Court-packing unlikely

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Change ◽  
Content Type ◽  
White House ◽  
Presidential Nomination ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Conservative Bias

Significance Rubio's move comes as several candidates for the Democratic Party's 2020 presidential nomination are discussing 'packing' the Supreme Court -- adding justices intended to nullify the perceived long-term conservative bias of the Court following Trump-era appointments. Impacts A constitutional change to limit the Supreme Court to nine justices is unlikely: amendments are purposely hard. Court-packing would not guarantee 'Democratic' or 'Republican' rulings: much depends on the case and how justices feel. Packing the courts would likely increase their politicisation, and potentially slow their deliberative capacity. If Trump wins a second term and Republicans keep the Senate, they will appoint further conservative justices. If the Democrats win the White House and Senate in 2020, they might 'pack' the lower courts.

Barrett’s US Court confirmation will help businesses

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Major Change ◽  
Foreseeable Future ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Trump Administration

Significance Absent the successful restructuring of the institution of the Supreme Court -- which would be major change and is therefore considered unlikely -- seating Barrett will solidify a conservative majority on the Court for the foreseeable future. Impacts A second term Trump administration would likely face fewer rulings against it by the newly composed Supreme Court. If Biden wins, he will be reluctant to expand the Supreme Court. A more conservative Court will help Biden and moderates keep Democratic progressives in check if Biden is president. The Court will likely be called on to decide one or more cases relating to the 2020 elections.

Democrats will avoid block on US Supreme Court pick

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Content Type ◽  
White House ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Personal Influence ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Regulatory Powers

Significance President Donald Trump nominated Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last year. Congressional Republicans blocked former President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the vacancy, Judge Merrick Garland, enabling Trump to name a conservative justice to set the balance of the Court after winning the presidential election. At least one Democratic senator has threatened to block Gorsuch’s appointment via upper house procedure. Impacts Future Democratic presidential candidates from the current Senate may suffer in primaries if they allow Gorsuch’s appointment. Gorsuch will help the White House and Congress severely cut back federal regulatory powers. Congressional Republicans are more likely to defy Trump on personnel and policy as his personal influence wanes ahead of the 2020 elections.

Conservatives will shape US Supreme Court agenda

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Union Membership ◽  
State Level ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Foreign Governments

Significance The Supreme Court opened its 2017–18 term earlier this month, and many of the cases currently scheduled for arguments could have significant implications for individuals, corporations, and foreign governments. The Court has not yet fully determined which cases it will hear this year, but many of those it will hear through the end of 2017 will be closely watched, especially due to the changed political and administrative circumstances surrounding the Court since the end of its 2016–17 term. Impacts A new Supreme Court vacancy could increase Trump’s popularity within his party despite his congressional critics. Democrats would benefit from gerrymandering restrictions, but stronger party structures are needed to win in redrawn districts. Union membership is likely to decline further, given structural economic shifts and state-level governmental pressure.

US Supreme Court clarifies liability standard under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for statements of opinion in registration statements

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 37-42
Author(s):  
Richard Parrino ◽  
Douglas Schwab ◽  
David Wertheimer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Pension Fund ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

Purpose – The purpose of this article is to examine the US Supreme Court’s much anticipated decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Const. Indus. Pension Fund. In this 2015 case, the Supreme Court announced important principles for interpreting the application of the two bases for liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 to statements of opinion expressed in registration statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with public securities offerings. Design/methodology/approach – The article examines the Supreme Court’s articulation of the standards federal courts must apply under Section 11 to determine if opinion statements were untrue statements of a material fact or misleading because they omitted material facts necessary to make the statements of opinion not misleading. The paper identifies a number of the complexities involved in the Supreme Court’s approach and emphasizes the nuanced assessment of the facts surrounding opinion statements courts will be required to undertake by Omnicare. Findings – The Omnicare decision has significant implications for the litigation of Section 11 claims challenging statements of opinion and for the preparation of registration statement disclosures. The Omnicare decision dramatically alters the standards for reviewing Section 11 claims premised on opinions long applied in a number of US federal appellate circuits. The decision is likely to result in more Section 11 claims based on supposedly misleading opinion statements, and potentially in a greater number of Section 11 claims that survive at least an initial motion to dismiss. Omnicare highlights the importance of including in registration statement disclosures meaningful cautionary statements identifying important facts that could cause actual outcomes to differ materially from views expressed in an opinion. Originality/value – Expert guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

Concern at opaque US Supreme Court rulings grows

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Reform ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Institutional Legitimacy ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Continued Use ◽  
Supreme Court Rulings ◽  
Legal Consequences

Significance The Court’s institutional legitimacy to interpret and sometimes invalidate laws affecting major issues may be undercut by this resort to procedural shortcuts, as they remove the normal public briefings, arguments and explanations of decisions that underpin the Court's authority. Impacts A Court renowned for its reluctance to upset settled legal expectations is changing law without the use of rigorous procedures. The Court’s legitimacy may be damaged by continued use of unsigned orders that have lasting legal consequences. President Joe Biden’s commission on Supreme Court reform has put the use of the shadow docket on its agenda.

US Supreme Court Commission will consider reforms

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Reform ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Past ◽  
Institutional Integrity ◽  
Raising Awareness ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Concrete Action

Significance Although the Commission represents the most concrete action on Supreme Court reform in decades, the large membership makes it unwieldy and it lacks a clear mandate to offer specific recommendations on reform proposals. Impacts The Commission may have the effect of raising awareness of alternatives beyond expanding the number of justices on the Court. The Court’s size varied in the past but expansion now would bring accusations of court-packing, eroding its institutional integrity. If Justice Stephen Breyer retires this year, Biden could advance a nominee for confirmation by a narrow Senate majority. Biden will continue to feel pressure from the left to re-balance a rightward tilt many perceive in the Court’s membership.

Norms, Leadership, and Consensus

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Alarie ◽  
Andrew J. Green
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Indian Supreme Court ◽  
Formal Rules

This chapter examines how judges are influenced not only by formal rules of how the court is to arrive at decisions, but also by norms of decision-making. It discusses the existence and strength of norms of consensus on different courts. Courts vary to a surprising extent in the size and causes of disagreement amongst judges. The two most extreme cases in our sample are the US Supreme Court, with over half of the cases having at least one dissent, and the Indian Supreme Court where only about 5 percent of cases involve a dissent. We find evidence that, depending on the country, a judge is influenced in whether she dissents by policy differences with other judges and her own workload. However, a judge’s decision to dissent also appears related to the background norms of whether it is acceptable to dissent, and the leadership of the chief justice or president of the court.

Federalism Theories and Principles of the US Supreme Court—Implications for National and State Powers and Public Policy and Administration

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Wise
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Theoretical Frameworks ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
Research Questions

Abstract This article reviews and analyzes the federalism theories and principles that the US Supreme Court has employed during various eras and compares and contrasts them. It does this by specifying the major theoretical frameworks that have been proposed for Supreme Court federalism decision making and then examines how the Supreme Court has employed their components during various eras. It then draws implications for public policy and administration and poses research questions for the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document