Senator Mitch McConnell defended his handling of the Merrick Garland nomination by declaring that the American public should have a say in the matter, through the vehicle of the 2016 election. That defense makes some intuitive sense. Because each Justice is appointed by a popularly-elected Executive official (the President) and confirmed by a popularly-elected legislative body (the Senate), the Court is procedurally majoritarian. The appointment and confirmation process, in other words, helps shield the Court from the countermajoritarian difficulty. But is this sentiment correct? Is the Court actually procedurally majoritarian? I explored these questions by building a dataset examining the confirmation votes behind each Supreme Court justice. My analysis yielded several conclusions worth highlighting. Notably, Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are the only members of the Court to have been (1) nominated by a President receiving less than a majority of the vote and (2) confirmed by Senators representing less than a majority of the U.S. population. Thus, while the Court has historically been procedurally majoritarian, the Kavanaugh and Gorsuch nominations constitute a significant break from this tradition. I note as well that the circumstances behind the Kavanaugh and Gorsuch nominations may well become the rule, rather than the exception, in the future, both at the Supreme Court and within the federal circuit courts. That result may affect the Court’s decisionmaking and jeopardize public faith in the Court’s legitimacy — implications that are ripe for additional research.
The Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic at the University of Virginia School of Law filed this amicus brief on behalf of San Bernardino...
Who has the legal right to challenge decisions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration? And should the moral umbrage of a group of anti-abortion...
President Joe Biden promised during his State of the Union address on March 7, 2024, that he would make the right to get an abortion a federal law.
“If...
Gradualism should have won out in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, exerting gravitational influence on the majority and dissenters alike. In general...
Today, legal culture is shaped by One Big Question: should courts, particularly the US Supreme Court, have a lot of power? This question is affecting...
On December 15, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Illumina, Inc. v. FTC. Although the court vacated and...
On January 17, the Supreme Court heard arguments in what are potentially the most significant commercial law cases of the last decade. In the...
This Article introduces the Jurist-Derived Judicial Ideology Scores (JuDJIS), an expert-sourced measure of judicial traits that can locate nearly...
Like the federal government, states can apply their laws to people beyond their borders. Statutes can reach out-of-state conduct, such as fraud, that...
It is widely believed that President Donald Trump’s judicial appointments reflected a strategy of appeasing evangelical Christians and other religious...
Cyber stalking involves repeated, often relentless targeting of someone with abuse. Death and rape threats may be part of a perpetrator’s playbook...
We apply a dynamic influence model to the opinions of the U.S. federal courts to examine the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in influencing the...
Generative AI is already beginning to alter legal practice. If optimistic forecasts prove warranted, how might this technology transform judicial...
Professor Elizabeth Scott, the chief reporter of the American Law Institute’s (ALI) Restatement of Children and the Law, has often observed that the...
The idea of institutionalism figures prominently in today’s debates about the role of federal courts in American democracy. For example, Chief Justice...