Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

Measuring Meta-Doctrine: An Empirical Assessment of Judicial Minimalism in the Supreme Court

62 Pages Posted: 2 Nov 2007 Last revised: 8 May 2015

Robert Anderson IV

Pepperdine University School of Law

Date Written: August 29, 2007

Abstract

One of the most influential recent theories of Supreme Court decision-making is Cass Sunstein's "judicial minimalism." Sunstein argues that a majority of the justices of the Rehnquist Court were "minimalists," preferring to "leave things undecided" by favoring case-by-case adjudication over ambitious judicial agendas. While many legal scholars have embraced Sunstein's argument, no piece of scholarship has attempted a quantitative empirical test of the theory. This paper develops an empirical measure for judicial minimalism and examines whether minimalism affected the opinion writing and voting of the justices in the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts. The empirical analysis supports the conclusion that judicial minimalism has a statistically significant effect on the opinions of the justices, providing the first quantitative evidence of "meta-doctrine" in the Supreme Court.

Suggested Citation

Anderson, Robert, Measuring Meta-Doctrine: An Empirical Assessment of Judicial Minimalism in the Supreme Court (August 29, 2007). Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 32, No. 1045, 2009. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1026350 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1026350

Robert Anderson IV (Contact Author)

Pepperdine University School of Law ( email )

24255 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90263
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
126
Rank
190,882
Abstract Views
571