Invisible Constitutions: Concurring Opinions and Plurality Judgments under Marks v. United States

References

• Bass, Jack. 1981. Unlikely Heroes. New York: Simon and Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Beim, Deborah, Alexander V. Hirsch, and Jonathan P. Kastellac. 2016. “Signaling and Counter-Signaling in the Judicial Hierarchy: An Empirical Analysis of En Banc Review.” American Journal of Political Science 60: 490–508. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benesh, Sara C., and Malia Reddick. 2002. “Overruled: An Event History Analysis of Lower Court Reaction to Supreme Court Alteration of Precedent." The Journal of Politics 64(2): 534–550. doi: 10.1111/1468-2508.00138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamin, Stuart Minor, and Bruce A. Desmarais. 2012. “Standing the Test of Time: The Breadth of Majority Coalitions and the Fate of U.S. Supreme Court Precedents." Journal of Legal Analysis 4(2): 445–469. doi: 10.1093/jla/las016.
   Google Scholar
• Berry, Melissa M., Donald J. Kochan, and Matthew Parlow. 2007. “Much Ado About Pluralities: Pride and Precedent Amidst the Cacophony of Concurrences, and a Re-Percolation After Rapanos.” Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law 15: 299.
   Google Scholar
• Black, Ryan C., and Ryan J. Owens. 2012. “Consider the Source (and the Message): Supreme Court Justices and Strategic Audits of Lower Court Decisions.” Political Research Quarterly 65(2): 385–395. doi: 10.1177/1065912910395324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, Ryan C., Ryan J. Owens, Justin Wedeking, and Patrick C. Wohlfarth. 2016. U.S. Supreme Court Opinions and Their Audiences. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, Christina L. 2015a. “Opinion Writing in the Federal District Courts.” Justice System Journal 36(3):254–273. doi: 10.1080/0098261X.2014.989790.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd, Christina L. 2015b. “The Hierarchical Influence of Courts of Appeals on District Courts." The Journal of Legal Studies 44(1): 113–141. doi: 10.1086/680993.
   Google Scholar
• Caldeira, Gregory A. and Christopher J.W. Zorn. 1998. “Of Time and Consensual Norms in the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 42(3): 874–902. doi: 10.2307/2991733.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corley, Pamela C. 2009. “Uncertain Precedent: Circuit Court Responses to Supreme Court Plurality Opinions.” American Politics Research 37(1): 30–49. doi: 10.1177/1532673X08319951.
   Google Scholar
• Corley, Pamela C. 2010. Concurring Opinion Writing on the U.S. Supreme Court. Albany: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Corley, Pamela C., Udi Sommer, Amy Steigerwalt, and Artemus Ward. 2010. “Extreme Dissensus: Explaining Plurality Decisions on the United States Supreme Court.” Justice System Journal 31(2): 180–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2000. “Measuring Issue Salience.” American Journal of Political Science 44(1): 66–83. doi: 10.2307/2669293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gould, Jonathan D. 2021. “Rethinking Swing Voters.” Vanderbilt Law Review 74: 85–142.
   Google Scholar
• Haskins, George L. and Herbert A. Johnson. 1981. History of the Supreme Court of the United States: Foundations of Power: John Marshall 1801-15. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Hitt, Matthew P. 2019. Inconsistency and Indecision in the United States Supreme Court. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mak, Maxwell H.H. 2009. “Hierarchical Constraints and the Choices Judges Make: Judicial Decision-Making at the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” PhD Dissertation, Stony Brook University.
   Google Scholar
• Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs, II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marceau, Justin F. 2009. “Lifting the Haze of Baze: Lethal Injection, the Eighth Amendment, and Plurality Opinions.” Arizona State Law Journal 41: 159–222.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, Andrew D., and Kevin M. Quinn. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999." Political Analysis 10(2): 134–53. doi: 10.1093/pan/10.2.134.
   Google Scholar
• Maveety, Nancy, Charles C. Turner, and Lori Beth Way. 2010. “The Rise of the Choral Court: Use of Concurrence in the Burger and Rehnquist Courts.” Political Research Quarterly 63(3): 627–639. doi: 10.1177/1065912908330345.
   Google Scholar
• Neuenkirchen, John P. 2013. “Plurality Decisions, Implicit Consensuses, and the Fifth-Vote Rule under Marks v. United States.” Widener Law Review 19(2): 387–436.
   Google Scholar
• Novak, Linda. 1980. “The Precedential Value of Supreme Court Plurality Decisions.” Columbia Law Review 80: 756. doi: 10.2307/1122139.
   Google Scholar
• Pauly, Marc and Martin Van Hees. 2006. “Logical Constraints on Judgement Aggregation.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 35: 569–585. doi: 10.1007/s10992-005-9011-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ray, Laura Klugman. 1990. “The Justices Write Separately: Uses of the Concurrence by the Rehnquist Court.” University of California, Davis Law Review 23: 777–831.
   Google Scholar
• Re, Richard M. 2019. “Beyond the Marks Rule.” Harvard Law Review 132: 1942–2008.
   Google Scholar
• Savage, David. 2010. Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Segal, Jeffrey A., and Albert D. Cover. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” The American Political Science Review 83(2): 557–65. doi: 10.2307/1962405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spaeth, Harold J., Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Jeffrey A. Segal, Theodore J. Ruger, and Sara C. Benesh. 2019 Supreme Court Database, Version 2019 Release 01. URL: http://Supremecourtdatabase.org.
   Google Scholar
• Spriggs, James F., II, and David R. Stras. 2011. “Explaining Plurality Decisions.” Georgetown Law Journal 99: 515–570.
   Google Scholar
• Stearns, Maxwell L. 2000. “The Case for Including Marks v. United States in the Canon of Constitutional Law.” Constitutional Commentary 17: 321–339.
   Google Scholar
• Stearns, Maxwell L., and Todd Zywicki. 2009. Public Choice Concepts and Applications in Law. West Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Steinman, Adam. 2018. “Nonmajority Opinions and Biconditional Rules.” Yale Law Journal Forum 128: 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Staton, Jeffrey K., and Georg Vanberg. 2008. “The Value of Vagueness: Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions.” American Journal of Political Science 52(3): 504–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00326.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurmon, Mark Alan. 1992. “When the Court Divides: Reconsidering the Precedential Value of Supreme Court Plurality Decisions.” Duke Law Journal 42: 419–68. doi: 10.2307/1372807.
   Google Scholar
• Toepfer, Owen P. 2021. “June Medical and the Marks Rule.” Notre Dame Law Review 96: 1725–1754.
   Google Scholar
• Wahlbeck, Paul J., James F. Spriggs, II, and Forrest Maltman. 1999. “The Politics of Dissents and Concurrences on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Politics Research 27(4): 488–514. doi: 10.1177/1532673X99027004006.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, Thomas G., Lee Epstein, and William J. Dixon. 1988. “On the Mysterious Demise of Consensual Norms in the United States Supreme Court.” The Journal of Politics 50(2): 361–89. doi: 10.2307/2131799.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weins, W. Jesse. 2011. “A Problematic Plurality Precedent: Why the Supreme Court Should Leave Marks over Van Orden v. Perry.” Nebraska Law Review 85: 830–874.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, Ryan C. 2017. “Questioning Marks: Plurality Decisions and Precedential Constraint.” Stanford Law Review 69: 795–8.
   Google Scholar