Overview

US Supreme Court Doctrine in the State High Courts challenges theoretical and empirical accounts about how state high courts use US Supreme Court doctrine and precedent. Michael Fix and Benjamin Kassow argue that theories that do not account for the full range of ways in which state high courts can act are, by definition, incomplete. Examining three important precedents – Atkins v. Virginia, Lemon v. Kurtzman, and DC v. Heller/McDonald v. Chicago – Fix and Kassow find that state high courts commonly ignore Supreme Court precedent for reasons of political ideology, path dependence, and fact patterns in cases that may be of varying similarity to those found in relevant US Supreme Court doctrine. This work, which provides an important addition to the scholarly literature on the impact of Supreme Court decisions, should be read by anyone interested in law and politics or traditional approaches to the study of legal decision-making.

Full Product Details

9781108835633

Table of Contents

Reviews

'With rich descriptions and rigorous analysis, Fix and Kassow utilize key death penalty, Establishment Clause, and gun control decisions to show that treatments of US Supreme Court precedent are complex, nuanced, and sometimes surprising. This exciting new work takes a fresh, innovative approach to understanding the development of legal policy, producing fascinating results and making a truly outstanding contribution to the scholarly literature.' Melinda Gann Hall, Michigan State University 'Fix and Kassow have written a groundbreaking book traversing political science and legal scholarship. Anyone interested in how Supreme Court opinions operate on the ground will find the study provocative and illuminating. State supreme courts play a large role in implementing (or not) US Supreme Court decisions and the authors' analysis of those state decisions makes a major contribution to the study of constitutional law.' Eric J. Segall, Kathy and Lawrence Ashe Professor of Law, Georgia State University 'The study of the US Supreme Court has been consumed by the quest for the Holy Grail of the public law field: precedent. Fix and Kassow are well on the trail. Their book is the most nuanced study of precedent and its influence on the relationship between state supreme courts and the US Supreme Court. The authors examine engaging cases involving the death penalty, freedom of religion, and the Second Amendment. Their study plows new theoretical ground and suggests a path for the continuing quest.' Richard L. Pacelle, Jr., University of Tennessee 'With rich descriptions and rigorous analysis, Fix and Kassow utilize key death penalty, Establishment Clause, and gun control decisions to show that treatments of US Supreme Court precedent are complex, nuanced, and sometimes surprising. This exciting new work takes a fresh, innovative approach to understanding the development of legal policy, producing fascinating results and making a truly outstanding contribution to the scholarly literature.' Melinda Gann Hall, Michigan State University 'Fix and Kassow have written a groundbreaking book traversing political science and legal scholarship. Anyone interested in how Supreme Court opinions operate on the ground will find the study provocative and illuminating. State supreme courts play a large role in implementing (or not) US Supreme Court decisions and the authors' analysis of those state decisions makes a major contribution to the study of constitutional law.' Eric J. Segall, Kathy and Lawrence Ashe Professor of Law, Georgia State University 'The study of the US Supreme Court has been consumed by the quest for the Holy Grail of the public law field: precedent. Fix and Kassow are well on the trail. Their book is the most nuanced study of precedent and its influence on the relationship between state supreme courts and the US Supreme Court. The authors examine engaging cases involving the death penalty, freedom of religion, and the Second Amendment. Their study plows new theoretical ground and suggests a path for the continuing quest.' Richard L. Pacelle, Jr., University of Tennessee

'With rich descriptions and rigorous analysis, Fix and Kassow utilize key death penalty, Establishment Clause, and gun control decisions to show that treatments of US Supreme Court precedent are complex, nuanced, and sometimes surprising. This exciting new work takes a fresh, innovative approach to understanding the development of legal policy, producing fascinating results and making a truly outstanding contribution to the scholarly literature.' Melinda Gann Hall, Michigan State University 'Fix and Kassow have written a groundbreaking book traversing political science and legal scholarship. Anyone interested in how Supreme Court opinions operate on the ground will find the study provocative and illuminating. State supreme courts play a large role in implementing (or not) US Supreme Court decisions and the authors' analysis of those state decisions makes a major contribution to the study of constitutional law.' Eric J. Segall, Kathy and Lawrence Ashe Professor of Law, Georgia State University 'The study of the US Supreme Court has been consumed by the quest for the Holy Grail of the public law field: precedent. Fix and Kassow are well on the trail. Their book is the most nuanced study of precedent and its influence on the relationship between state supreme courts and the US Supreme Court. The authors examine engaging cases involving the death penalty, freedom of religion, and the Second Amendment. Their study plows new theoretical ground and suggests a path for the continuing quest.' Richard L. Pacelle, Jr., University of Tennessee

Author Information

Michael P. Fix is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Georgia State University. His research focuses on the evolution of law and policy over time. His work has appeared in numerous political science journals and law reviews including Political Research Quarterly, Social Science Quarterly, Vanderbilt Law Review, and Justice System Journal. Benjamin J. Kassow is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and Public Administration at the University of North Dakota. His research focuses on how judges formulate opinions and the impact of judicial decisions, broadly defined. He has published articles in a variety of journals, including Political Research Quarterly, American Politics Research, and the Journal of Law and Courts.

Tab Content 6

Customer Reviews

Recent Reviews

Countries Available