1932

Abstract

In many democratic polities, constitutional courts significantly shape the political landscape. Yet, how they are able to do so is a puzzle: With limited resources at their disposal, and no direct powers of enforcement, judges must rely on the willingness of executives and legislators to comply with their decisions and to respect judicial authority. This essay surveys recent literature that has explored the conditions that sustain judicial authority. I contrast explanations that highlight the benefits that independent courts can provide to other policy makers (“endogenous explanations”) with explanations that emphasize the constraints that keep executives and legislators from undermining the judiciary (“exogenous explanations”). I conclude by exploring the role of strategic judicial behavior in maintaining and expanding judicial power.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-040113-161150
2015-05-11
2024-06-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/18/1/annurev-polisci-040113-161150.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-040113-161150&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alter K. 1996. The European Court's political power. Western Eur. Polit. 19:458–87 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aranson P, Ernest G, Glen R. 1982. A theory of legislative delegation. Cornell Law Rev. 68:1–67 [Google Scholar]
  3. Axelrod R. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation New York: Basic Books [Google Scholar]
  4. Barros R. 2002. Constitutionalism and Dictatorship: Pinochet, the Junta, and the 1980 Constitution Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  5. Bednar J. 2005. Federalism as a public good. Constitutional Polit. Econ. 16:189–205 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergara M, Richman B, Spiller PT. 2003. Modeling Supreme Court strategic decision making: the congressional constraint. Legis. Stud. Q. 281:247–80 [Google Scholar]
  7. Boudreaux D, Pritchard AC. 1994. Reassessing the role of the independent judiciary in enforcing interest-group bargains. Constitutional Polit. Econ. 5:1–21 [Google Scholar]
  8. Buchanan JM, Tullock G. 1962. The Calculus of Consent Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press [Google Scholar]
  9. Capelletti M. 1989. The Judicial Process in Comparative Perspective Oxford, UK: Clarendon [Google Scholar]
  10. Carrubba C, Rogers JR. 2003. National judicial power and the dormant commerce clause. J. Law Econ. Organ. 19:543–70 [Google Scholar]
  11. Carrubba CJ. 2009. A model of the endogenous development of judicial institutions in federal and international systems. J. Polit. 71:55–69 [Google Scholar]
  12. Carrubba CJ, Zorn C. 2010. Executive discretion, judicial decision-making, and separation of powers in the United States. J. Polit. 72:812–24 [Google Scholar]
  13. Carrubba CJ, Gabel M. 2014. International Courts and the Performance of International Agreements: a General Theory with Evidence from the European Union Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  14. Clark TS. 2011. The Limits of Judicial Independence Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  15. de Figueiredo R. 2002. Electoral competition, political uncertainty, and policy insulation. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 96:321–33 [Google Scholar]
  16. Elster J. 2000. Ulysses Unbound: Studies in Rationality, Precommitment, and Constraints Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  17. Ely JH. 1980. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review Cambridge, UK: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  18. Epstein L, Knight J, Shvetsova O. 2001. The role of constitutional courts in the establishment and maintenance of democratic systems of government. Law Soc. Rev. 35:117–64 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fiorina M. 1982. Legislative choice of regulatory forms: legal process or administrative process?. Public Choice 39:33–66 [Google Scholar]
  20. Friedman B. 2002. The history of the countermajoritarian difficulty, part V: the birth of an academic obsession. Yale Law J. 112:153–259 [Google Scholar]
  21. Friedman B. 2004. History, politics, and judicial independence. Judicial Integrity A Sajo 99–124 Amsterdam: Koninklijke Brill NV [Google Scholar]
  22. Friedman B. 2009. The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux [Google Scholar]
  23. Garrett G. 1995. The politics of legal integration in the European Union. Int. Organ. 49:1171–81 [Google Scholar]
  24. Gibson JL. 1989. Understandings of justice: institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, and political tolerance. Law Soc. Rev. 23:469–96 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gibson JL. 1991. Institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, and compliance with Supreme Court decisions: a question of causality. Law Soc. Rev. 25:631–36 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gibson JL, Caldeira GA, Baird V. 1998. On the legitimacy of national high courts. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 92:343–58 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gilligan T, Krehbiel K. 1990. Organization of informative committees by a rational legislature. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 34:531–64 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ginsburg T. 2003. Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  29. Ginsburg T. 2008. The global spread of judicial review. The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics K Whittington, D Kelemen, G Caldeira 81–98 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  30. Ginsburg T, Moustafa T. 2008. Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  31. Ginsburg T, Versteeg M. 2014. Why do countries adopt constitutional review?. J. Law Econ. Organ. 30:587–622 [Google Scholar]
  32. Graber M. 1993. The nonmajoritarian difficulty: legislative deference to the judiciary. Stud. Am. Polit. Dev. 7:35–73 [Google Scholar]
  33. Graber M. 1998. Establishing judicial review? Schooner Peggy and the early Marshall Court. Polit. Res. Q. 51:221–39 [Google Scholar]
  34. Graber M. 2000. Naked land transfers and American constitutional development. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 53:71–121 [Google Scholar]
  35. Greif A, Laitin D. 2004. A theory of endogenous institutional change. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 98:633–52 [Google Scholar]
  36. Harvey A, Friedman B. 2006. Pulling punches: congressional constraints on the Supreme Court's constitutional rulings, 1987–2000. Legis. Stud. Q. 31:533–62 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hayek F. 1960. The Constitution of Liberty Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  38. Helmke G. 2005. Courts Under Constraints: Judges, Generals, and Presidents in Argentina Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  39. Hilbink L. 2007. Judges beyond Politics in Democracy and Dictatorship: Lessons from Chile Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  40. Hirshl R. 2000. The political origins of judicial empowerment through constitutionalization: lessons from four constitutional revolutions. Law Social Inquiry 25:91–149 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hirschl R. 2004. Toward Juristocracy Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hirschl R. 2008. The judicialization of mega-politics and the rise of political courts. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11:93–118 [Google Scholar]
  43. Holmes S. 2013. Constitutions and constitutionalism. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law M Rosenfeld, A Sajo 189–216 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  44. Huntington S. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late 20th Century Norman: Univ. Oklahoma Press [Google Scholar]
  45. Knight J, Epstein L. 1998. The Choices Justices Make Washington, DC: CQ Press [Google Scholar]
  46. Landes W, Posner R. 1975. The independent judiciary in an interest group perspective. J. Law Econ. 18:875–901 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lax J. 2011. The new judicial politics of legal doctrine. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 14:131–57 [Google Scholar]
  48. Magalhaes PC. 2003. The limits of judicialization: legislative politics and constitutional review in Iberian democracies PhD diss. Ohio State Univ. [Google Scholar]
  49. McGuire KT, Stimson JA. 2004. The least dangerous branch revisited: new evidence on Supreme Court responsiveness to public preferences. J. Polit. 66:1018–35 [Google Scholar]
  50. McGuire KT, Vanberg G, Smith CE, Caldeira GA. 2009. Measuring policy content on the US Supreme Court. J. Polit. 71:1305–21 [Google Scholar]
  51. Mishler W, Sheehan RS. 1993. The Supreme Court as a countermajoritarian institution? The impact of public opinion on Supreme Court decisions. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 88:716–24 [Google Scholar]
  52. Moustafa T. 2007. The Struggle for Constitutional Power: Law, Politics, and Economic Development in Egypt Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  53. North DC, Weingast BR. 1989. Constitutions and commitment: the evolution of institutions governing public choice in seventeenth-century England. J. Econ. Hist. 49:803–32 [Google Scholar]
  54. Olson M. 1993. Democracy, dictatorship, and development. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 87:567–76 [Google Scholar]
  55. Patty JW, Penn EM. 2014. Social Choice and Legitimacy: The Possibilities of Impossibility Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  56. Powell GB. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  57. Ramseyer JM. 1994. The puzzling (in)dependence of courts: a comparative approach. J. Legal Stud. 23:721–47 [Google Scholar]
  58. Ramseyer JM, Rasmusen EB. 2001. Why are Japanese judges so conservative in politically charged cases?. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 95:331–44 [Google Scholar]
  59. Riker WH. 1982. Liberalism Against Populism Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland [Google Scholar]
  60. Rogers JR. 2001. Information and judicial review: a signaling game of legislative-judicial interaction. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 45:84–99 [Google Scholar]
  61. Rogers JR, Vanberg G. 2002. Judicial advisory opinions and legislative outcomes in comparative perspective. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 46:379–97 [Google Scholar]
  62. Salzberger EM. 1993. A positive analysis of the doctrine of separation of powers, or: Why do we have an independent judiciary?. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 13:349–79 [Google Scholar]
  63. Schwartz H. 2000. The Struggle for Constitutional Justice in Post-Communist Europe Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  64. Segal JA. 1997. Separation of powers games in the positive theory of Congress and courts. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 91:28–44 [Google Scholar]
  65. Shapiro M. 1981. Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  66. Staton J. 2006. Constitutional review and the selective promotion of case results. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 50:98–112 [Google Scholar]
  67. Staton J. 2010. Judicial Power and Strategic Communication in Mexico Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  68. Staton JK, Vanberg G. 2008. The value of vagueness: delegation, defiance, and judicial opinions. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 58:504–19 [Google Scholar]
  69. Stephenson MC. 2003. When the devil turns: the political foundations of independent judicial review. J. Legal Stud. 32:59–90 [Google Scholar]
  70. Stephenson MC. 2004. Court of public opinion: government accountability and judicial independence. J. Law Econ. Organ. 20:379–99 [Google Scholar]
  71. Stephenson MC. 2006. Legislative allocation of delegated power: uncertainty, risk, and the choice between agencies and courts. Harvard Law Rev. 119:1036–70 [Google Scholar]
  72. Sutter D. 1997. Enforcing constitutional constraints. Constitutional Polit. Econ. 8:139–50 [Google Scholar]
  73. Tate CN, Vallinder T. 1995. The Global Expansion of Judicial Power New York: New York Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  74. Taylor M. 1987. The Possibility of Cooperation Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  75. Tocqueville A. 1988 (1835). Democracy in America New York: Harper Perennial [Google Scholar]
  76. Trochev A. 2011. Judging Russia: The Role of the Constitutional Court in Russian Politics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  77. Tsebelis G. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  78. Tushnet M. 1994. The significance of Brown v. Board of Education. Virginia Law Rev. 80:173–84 [Google Scholar]
  79. Tyler T, Raskinski K. 1991. Legitimacy and the acceptance of unpopular Supreme Court decisions: a reply to Gibson. Law Soc. Rev. 25:621–30 [Google Scholar]
  80. Vanberg G. 2000. Establishing judicial independence in West Germany: the impact of opinion leadership and the separation of powers. Comp. Polit. 32:333–53 [Google Scholar]
  81. Vanberg G. 2001. Legislative-judicial relations: a game-theoretic approach to constitutional review. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 45:346–61 [Google Scholar]
  82. Vanberg G. 2005. The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  83. Vanberg G. 2008. Establishing and maintaining judicial independence. The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics K Whittington, RD Kelemen, G Caldeira 99–118 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  84. Vanberg G. 2011. Substance versus procedure: constitutional enforcement and constitutional choice. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 80:309–18 [Google Scholar]
  85. Vanberg V, Buchanan JM. 1989. Interests and theories in constitutional choice. J. Theor. Polit. 1:49–62 [Google Scholar]
  86. Weingast BR. 1997. The political foundations of democracy and the rule of law. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 91:245–63 [Google Scholar]
  87. White GE. 2000. The Constitution and the New Deal Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  88. Whittington KE. 2003. Legislative sanctions and the strategic environment of judicial review. Int. J. Const. Law 1:446–74 [Google Scholar]
  89. Whittington KE. 2005. Interpose your friendly hand: political supports for the exercise of judicial review by the United States Supreme Court. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 99:583–96 [Google Scholar]
  90. Whittington KE. 2007. Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-040113-161150
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error