Narrowing Supreme Court Precedent from Below
نویسنده
چکیده
Lower courts supposedly follow Supreme Court precedent—but they often don’t. Instead of adhering to the most persuasive interpretations of the Court’s opinions, lower courts often adopt narrower readings. For example, recent courts of appeals’ decisions have narrowly interpreted the Court’s rulings on police searches, gun control, and campaign finance. This practice—which I call “narrowing from below”—challenges the authority of higher courts and can generate legal disuniformity. But it is also beneficial. Narrowing from below allows lower courts to update obsolete precedents, mitigate the harmful consequences of the Court’s errors, and enhance the transparency of their decisionmaking process. This Article contends that narrowing from below is usually legitimate when lower courts adopt reasonable readings of higher court precedent, even though those readings are not the most persuasive ones available. This conclusion holds true—with some significant modifications—under multiple scholarly models of vertical stare decisis, including models that view higher court rulings as legally authoritative, comparatively proficient, or usefully predictive. Understanding narrowing from below as a legitimate activity also points toward a new “signals” model of vertical stare decisis. Under this model, lower courts follow the Court’s relatively informal cues to resolve ambiguity in conventional precedent, including by narrowing from below.
منابع مشابه
The authority of Supreme Court precedent
We construct the complete network of 30,288 majority opinions written by the U.S. Supreme Court and the cases they cite from 1754 to 2002 in he United States Reports. Data from this network demonstrates quantitatively the evolution of the norm of stare decisis in the 19th Century and significant deviation from this norm by the activist Warren Court. We further describe a method for creating aut...
متن کاملConstitutional Precedent of Amicus Briefs
We investigate shared language between U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions and interest groups’ corresponding amicus briefs. Specifically, we evaluate whether language that originated in an amicus brief acquired legal precedent status by being cited in the Court’s opinion. Using plagiarism detection software, automated querying of a large legal database, and manual analysis, we establish seven...
متن کاملPATENTLY NON-OBVIOUS II: EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON THE HINDSIGHT ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN KSR v. TELEFLEX
For the first time in thirty years, the Supreme Court will consider the core patent requirement that an invention be non-obvious. At the heart of the case lies the challenge of how to insulate non-obvious decisions from the distortion of the hindsight bias. This Article reports the latest empirical studies in a line of hindsight research, which present experimental data bearing directly on the ...
متن کامل