United States Supreme Court Research Articles

Mixtures of Probit Regression Models with Overlapping Clusters

Studies with binary outcomes on a heterogeneous population are quite common. Typically, the heterogeneity is modelled through varying effect coefficients within some binary regression setting combined with a clustering procedure. Most of the existing methods assign statistical units to distinct and non-overlapping clusters. However, there are scenarios where units exhibit a more complex organization and the clusters can be thought as partially overlapping. In this case, the standard approach does not work. In this paper, we define a mixture of regression models that allows overlapping clusters. This approach involves an overlap function that maps the regression coefficients, either at the unit or response level, of the parent clusters into the coefficients of the multiple allocation clusters. In order to deal with this intrinsic heterogeneity, regression analyses have to be stratified for different groups of observations or clusters. We present a computationally efficient Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) scheme for the case of a mixture of probit regressions. A simulation study shows the overall performance of the method. We conclude with two illustrative examples of modelling voting behavior, involving United States (US) Supreme Court justices over a number of topics and members of the United Kingdom (UK) parliament over divisions related to Brexit. These applications provide insights on the usefulness of the method in real applications. The method described can be extended to the case of a generic mixture of multivariate generalized linear models under overlapping clusters.

US Supreme Court holds that copyright law’s discovery rule does not impose a 3-year limit on infringement damages

US Supreme Court holds that copyright law’s discovery rule does not impose a 3-year limit on infringement damages

The Influence of Descriptive Representation on Support for Judicial Nominees and the US Supreme Court

AbstractWe argue that characteristics of unelected officials directly influence individuals’ perceptions and evaluations of them. These evaluations then have indirect, downstream consequences on evaluations of the institution. To test this, we fielded a unique survey with an oversample of Black Americans after the nomination of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. Using a conjoint experimental design to randomize nominee race, we find that increased racial descriptive representation elicits more favorable views of the nominee and Court among Black respondents. Causal mediation analysis confirms our theoretical expectation that descriptive representation indirectly influences views of the Court through its effects on views of nominees. The effects we uncover are not confined to co-partisan nominees, indicating that descriptive representation may matter for more than policy reasons alone. Finally, our external validity test suggests these effects generalize beyond our experimental setting, with Black (but not white) respondents equally as supportive of an anonymous profile matching Justice Jackson’s characteristics as they are of Jackson herself.

Ramifications of the Supreme Court’s Latest Term for Health Regulation

This Viewpoint discusses several major rulings from the US Supreme Court’s 2023 to 2024 term and how these rulings may affect federal agencies’ ability to enact health policy.

The Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Ruling

This Viewpoint explores the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo and the implications the ruling could have on the regulation of laboratory-developed tests and public health.

Despotic dominion and union organizing: Law, property, and the historical geography of class struggle in California agribusiness

This paper examines the role of law, particularly law related to private property, in the historical geography of class struggle. At the center of the analysis is the ‘access rule’, written by the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board in 1975 and struck down by the United States Supreme Court in 2021. Responding to the specific geography of California agribusiness labor relations and the long history of violent repression of workers' organizing rights, the rule allowed union organizers onto growers' property under highly constrained conditions to speak with workers about the merits of unionization. The paper traces the ‘pre-history’ of the rule – the decades of law officers and growers' efforts to deny organizers access to California's rural working class – the working of the rule during its more than forty-five years of existence, and its demise at the hands of the current, conservative supreme court. In doing so, it shows how law not only shapes class composition in particular landscapes but is an essential tool, strategically deployed, by all sides in class struggles.

Behind the Bench: Power Dynamics in the Supreme Court of the United States Through the Lens of Construal Level

Power dynamics exist among the nine justices on the Supreme Court. Through the lens of construal level, the justices’ psychological distance can indicate power, which can ultimately affect the decision-making process on case deliberation. This research examines power dynamics arising from tenure, gender, and political ideology of the justices, and the type of opinion written, through language conveyed in written opinions. I find that tenure, gender and political ideology have some association with abstraction, certainty, positive affect and/or future orientation, suggesting that justices have predictable behavioral implications stemming from their power level. Results for the type of opinions show significance for the opposite prediction, with concurring and dissenting opinions exhibiting more abstract, certain and positive. Exploring power dynamics among the justices helps to unpack the decision-making process in the High Court.

Ethics of abortion in transplantation.

The controversial medical procedure of abortion is the subject of this article. It argues that for transplant patients, including recipients, abortion is ethical. In June 2022, the United States Supreme Court overturned the long-standing decision of Roe v. Wade. This decision has led to a socio-legal environment where obtaining an abortion is impossible for some patients. However, the moral position relating to patients who have undergone transplants or are on a waiting list has been largely overlooked. End-stage renal, liver, and heart disease presents a hazardous situation for pregnancy, posing risks to both the fetus and the pregnant person. The abortion procedure is medically safer and allows a patient to proceed with a transplant. Limiting access to abortion or preventing it altogether will have a significant negative impact on transplant patients. The ethical analysis of abortion can be likened to compelling a relative or loved one of a transplant recipient to donate an organ to their family member or loved one. This article emphasizes the importance of maintaining the legal availability of abortion for transplant patients. Allowing abortions in transplant patients upholds ethical parity, as seen in the analogous situation of live organ donation.

The Theological Anthropology of Dobbs: Women in Service to White Nationalism

Précis: In 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and overturned Roe v. Wade, ending federal protection for the rights of people who are pregnant to obtain an abortion. Discussions of abortion in the United States are, and always have been, bound up with issues of gender, race, and ethnicity. The Dobbs decision is the latest in a long history of U.S. policies that manipulate reproduction in order to maintain white dominance. In the same logic as military service, people who can become pregnant are now being required to sacrifice themselves, not for the possible individual embryo or fetus they might carry, but rather for the nation. They are conscripted into service of a particular vision of the United States as a white nation. This universal, enforced availability for service truncates the status of women, rendering us less than fully human.

An Improved 21st Century Judicial System with Environmental Science Expertise is Needed for Resolving Interstate Water Conflicts.

As stresses on groundwater resources increase due to growing population and climate change, water litigation, such as the recently decided Mississippi (MS) vs Tennessee (TN) lawsuit, will become more common. In the United States, lawsuits between states can be heard only by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). These lawsuits are expensive and lengthy, often requiring highly specialized technical expertise. In the MS vs TN case, the Court unanimously held that an interstate aquifer is subject to equitable apportionment. Although this appears to be a sound resolution, a careful examination of the SCOTUS hearing transcript revealed that the Justices had several egregious misconceptions about the groundwater system. These misconceptions arose in part due to the failure of technical experts to communicate groundwater concepts in understandable terms and in part due to the Justices' lack of expertise in groundwater science. To address these issues, we first explore methods for improving scientific communication in courtrooms. Second, we propose ideas for reforming the legal system and provide compelling arguments for using the lower courts to hear such cases. We also explore the possibility of creating specialized federal water courts to resolve water disputes.

The Imperative to Promote Diversity Post-Students for Fair Admissions Analyzing the Effects of Student-Body Diversity on Attrition, GPA, and Bar Passage in Law Students and Graduates

ABSTRACT In June 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts declared the consideration of race in university admissions unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Now, as the era of race-conscious admissions draws to a close, this study examines whether the educational benefits that flow from racial and ethnic student-body diversity acknowledged in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) persist in a law school context. Using data from the American Bar Association (ABA), the U.S. Census Bureau, and institutional partnerships with 21 law schools, we model student racial/ethnic diversity on law school campuses as a predictor of law-school-level attrition (n = 183), law-student-level GPA (n = 5,129), and law-student-level first-time bar passage (n = 4,808) among underrepresented law students of color. Campus diversity is operationalized as a Blau’s Diversity index. Our findings demonstrate modest benefits associated with racial and ethnic student-body diversity for student retention and first-time bar passage among underrepresented law students of color.

The Impact of Changing Abortion Legislation on Emergency Medicine Residents in a State With Protected Abortion Rights.

Background The US Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe v Wade, allowing individual states to determine abortion restrictions, significantly impacting graduate medical education (GME). While focus has been on states enacting restrictions, the impacts in states where abortion rights are safeguarded are equally important. Emergency medicine (EM) serves as a safety net within the health care system, making it ideal for understanding the broader implications of these legal changes on GME. Objective To explore the experiences and perspectives of EM residents regarding changing abortion legislation in California, an abortion-protective state. Methods We conducted a qualitative study using transcendental phenomenology. Thirteen postgraduate year 4 EM residents from a single large university-based program in California participated in semistructured interviews in 2023. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Four themes were identified: (1) impact of changing abortion legislation on practice; (2) personal and professional decisions influenced by legislation; (3) navigating legal uncertainties in practice; and (4) advocacy and engagement beyond clinical practice. Residents reported varying levels of awareness and concern about the implications of abortion laws on EM practice, the influence of these laws on their career decisions, the need for legal guidance, and a commitment to advocacy. These themes highlight a complex interplay between legal changes, personal values, and professional responsibilities. Conclusions This study highlights the significant impact of the Dobbs decision on EM residents in California, revealing that residents face unique ethical, legal, and advocacy challenges that may affect their professional identity formation.

Acts of Providence: The religious latency surrounding and shaping Marbury v. Madison and the Status-Denkschrift

Franklin D. Roosevelt recommended that “like the Bible, [the Constitution] ought to be read again and again.” Gustav Heinemann portrayed the Grundgesetz as a “great offering,” whose words must become flesh. Nevertheless, does this have any bearing on constitutional adjudication? Although presidents didn’t – and more and more don’t – shy about handling their respective constitutions as bibles, have justices and constitutional scholars proceeded otherwise? Common wisdom may answer yes, they did. The aim of my study is to show that this not quite the case. I pursue it in reference to two, leading liberal democratic constitutional courts, the US Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court. This happens in three parts: (1) I will engage with court architecture, understood as a testimony to each institution’s articulation for self-justification and self-empowerment; (2) the semantic consecration of constitutional adjudication especially vis-à-vis politics, as it took place in the struggles over what was implied by the innovations pushed forward in the contexts of Marbury v. Madison, on the one hand, and of the German Constitutional Court’s Status-Denkschrift, on the other; (3) and legal-methodological debates on the relationship between the Christian Bible and constitutional provisions that run in parallel and connection to these two landmark events. My findings point out that, in face of how disruptive the differentiation between law and politics was and is, constitutional actors in 19th century United States and 20th century Germany frequently, if not invariably, relied upon religious resources to embed their positions.

Challenging Discourses of Sexual Violence on X: The Linguistic Representation of Victims and Perpetrators in Kavanaugh’s Confirmation Process

In September 2018, American Justice Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford during his nomination to the US Supreme Court. The sexual allegations provoked a crisis in American society concerning the rights of female American citizens and created a heated debate among X (formerly Twitter) users, who commented on the event and expressed their (dis)affiliation. Research has shown that X is one of the most sexist and abusive social media services due to the constant spread and negotiation of different discourses relating to rape culture on the platform (Mendes et al. 2018). Consequently, the objectives of this research are to examine the linguistic patterns and discourses employed by X users to denounce patriarchal oppression and negotiate the identities of the different social actors involved in Kavanaugh’s confirmation process. To do so, two datasets of posts (previously known as ‘tweets’) containing the opposing hashtags #KavanaughConfirmation and #NoKavanaughConfirmation were analyzed and contrasted drawing on Corpus-Assisted Discourse Analysis tools (i.e., keywords and concordances) (Partington et al. 2013) and Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (Lazar 2005). The results revealed a high presence of keywords concerning gender and violence to construct identities of victims and perpetrators. However, not only were such identities related to sexual violence but also political and institutional violence. In addition, the analysis revealed the creation of discursive protests on X to resist patriarchal discourses and practices in American society.

Brief of over 300 reproductive health researchers as Amici Curiae in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

On January 30, 2024, over 300 researchers filed an amicus brief in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a United States (US) Supreme Court case that could have severely impacted access to mifepristone, one of the two drugs commonly used in medication abortion. The researchers summarize the legal challenges to the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) original approval of mifepristone in 2000 and its 2016 and 2021 decisions modifying mifepristone's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Program and label, the responses from the FDA and drug manufacturer to the challenges, and the potential implications of the Court's decision on access to mifepristone in the US. The researchers detail how the FDA relied on a robust scientific record analyzing tens of thousands of patient experiences that conclusively demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the changes to the mifepristone REMS Program and label and urge the Supreme Court to rely on the clear scientific record and preserve access to mifepristone without reimposing restrictions. What follows is a reprint of this brief.

The Supreme Court Decision on Firearm Ownership for People Subject to Restraining Orders

This Viewpoint explicates the complex reasoning the US Supreme Court has used in rulings on gun control and raises concerns that the recent Rahimi decision poses more questions than it settled on the future of the Second Amendment.

Examining public perceptions of US campaign finance over time through survey experiments

In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the US Supreme Court ruled that campaign finance regulations “are appropriate legislative weapons against the reality or appearance of improper influence.” Using data from multiple survey experiments repeated across six CCES surveys from 2012 to 2020, we test whether varied information regarding US campaign finance institutions and laws alter public perceptions of the campaign finance system and campaign finance reform across time, including the perception of improper influence. Respondents had more negative attitudes toward candidates who received support from Super PACs. However, respondents were not moved by primed differences in expenditure limits, coordination, or donation disclosure. Ultimately, we find that the majority of Americans dislike and distrust the campaign finance system and generally remain unmoved by any experimentally-primed differences. These experimental findings remain consistent across time, indicating that attitudes toward the US campaign finance system are stable and resistant to change.

“When does human life begin?” teaching human embryology in the context of the American abortion debate

The Dobbs decision of the United States Supreme Court and the actions of several state legislatures have made it risky, if not outright dangerous, to teach factual material concerning human embryology. At some state universities, for instance, if a professor's lecture is felt to teach or discuss abortion (as it might when teaching about tubal pregnancies, hydatidiform moles, or eneuploidy), that instructor risks imprisonment for up to 14 years (Gyori, 2023). Some states' new censorship rules have thus caused professors to drop modules on abortion from numerous science and humanities courses. In most states, instructors can still teach about human embryonic development and not risk putting their careers or livelihoods in jeopardy. However, even in many of these institutions, students can bring a professor to a disciplinary hearing by claiming that the instructor failed to provide ample trigger warnings on such issues. This essay attempts to provide some strategies wherein human embryology and the ethical issues surrounding it might be taught and students may be given resources to counter unscientific falsehoods about fertilization and human development. This essay provides evidence for teaching the following propositions.Mis-information about human biology and medicine is rampant on the internet, and there are skills that can be taught to students that will help them determine which sites should trusted. This is a skill that needs to be taught as part of science courses.

From Harm Reduction to Reproductive Justice: Lawyering in the Post-Dobbs Landscape

The US Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned nearly fifty years of constitutional doctrine protecting the right to seek an abortion, throwing the nation into a state of legal chaos. This legal chaos has its own set of unique and harmful consequences to abortion seekers over and beyond the restricted access to care. As this article argues, helping abortion seekers, and those who would assist them, parse the changing state of the law and understand the threats in the legal landscape is a critical way that activist attorneys can help reduce harm and advance reproductive justice.

US Obstetrician-Gynecologists’ Perceived Impacts of Post–Dobbs v Jackson State Abortion Bans

(Abstracted from JAMA Network Open 2024;7(1):e2352109) The US Supreme Court decision in the case of Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Dobbs) has had far-reaching consequences and implications for patients and for health care professionals. Between the announcement of the result of this case in 2022 and December 2023, 16 states, with 5 more pending, have passed bans on abortion with exceptions that in many cases are very limited.