Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Kritzer, H. M., & Richards M. J. (2005). The influence of law in the Supreme Court’s search-and-seizure jurisprudence. American Politics Research, 33, 33–55.

URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/c5f5uuhZPz66S52w8St2/full

Abstract: In this research note/replication, we apply the construct of jurisprudential regimes as described in our recent article to the jurisprudential area of search and seizure. Given the centrality of this area of Supreme Court decision making in the core studies supporting the attitudinal model, replicating our analysis of the jurisprudential regime construct in this area provides an important test of the concept. Our results produce strong support for the proposition that post-Mapp decision making can be separated into distinct regimes, with a set of important cases decided in 1983-1984 demarcating the regimes. The predictors of decisions in the two periods are consistent with the types of changes one would expect the regime shift to produce. Our findings challenge the attitudinalists’ proposition that there is at best negligible statistical evidence that law influences Supreme Court decision making.

Journal Article 2: Comparato, S. A., & McClurg, S. D. (2007). A neo-institutional explanation of state Supreme Court responses in search and seizure cases. American Politics Research, 35, 726–754.

URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/RT2b2IbPnqwHQ4PCaNUh/full

Abstract: To better understand the relationship between the U.S. Supreme Court and state supreme courts, we examine how Supreme Court precedent affects state supreme court decision making. Examining state supreme court decisions in search and seizure cases decided by the Supreme Court between 1983 and 1993, we specifically test hypotheses about how state judicial context and Supreme Court behavior influences when the lower court is likely to be affected by Supreme Court precedent. We find that there is substantial variation in the responses to precedent by state supreme courts. We find that precedent has a substantial influence on the behavior of state supreme court justices, but judicial ideology and the level of historical conflict between the Supreme Court and the state supreme court also influence the dissemination of precedent to the states. Most interesting, the effect of judicial retention methods on the application of precedent are considerable.