Collaborative Research: The Establishment of Stare Decisis in the American Legal System

合作研究：遵循先例在美国法律的体系中的建立保罗J.瓦尔贝克，乔治华盛顿大学（SES-0550182）蒂莫西R。约翰逊，明尼苏达大学（SES-0550276）詹姆斯F。Spriggs，II，University of加州，Davis（SES-0550451）学者、法官和律师普遍承认遵循先例，即法官遵循先前判决的法院意见中的裁决的规则，是美国司法的核心规范。尽管遵循先例的核心地位得到了公认，但是，迄今为止，还没有任何社会科学研究对遵循先例的发展原因和时间提出了全面的解释。事实上，学者们甚至对法官尊重先例的规范何时在美国制度化的问题上意见不一。本研究将从非正式政治规范（如遵循先例）是决策者战略选择的结果这一观点出发，对遵循先例的起源和发展进行理论解释。研究人员将使用严格的定量测试来测试从他们的理论中得出的预测，这些数据来自殖民地法院，州最高法院和联邦法院（美国最高法院，美国巡回法院和联邦地区法院）发布的法院意见，从最早报道的殖民地法院意见到1890年。遵循先例在美国的出现和发展是制度创造和发展的更普遍现象的一个例子。 包括道格拉斯·诺斯（Douglass North）在内的学者将制度定义为社会的游戏规则，或者更正式地说，是塑造人类互动的约束。由于制度规则对构建人类行为的重要性，有大量的学术研究旨在理解制度规则作为政治、经济和社会变革的媒介的起源和发展。事实上，在许多学者看来，制度从何而来以及如何发展的问题是社会科学面临的最重要的难题之一。通过建立一个理论框架和相关的实证检验来了解美国法院系统是如何发展这一制度规则的，研究人员将能够解释美国最重要的司法基础设施的起源和发展。除了理解遵循先例的起源和发展的理论重要性之外，这项研究也具有现实意义。以Anastasoff诉美国案（2000年）为例，美国第八巡回上诉法院裁定，其发表未发表意见的做法违反了美国宪法第三条，因为尊重先例的规范是一项具有宪法约束力的规则。大多数人的这一裁决部分是基于一个历史性的断言，即遵循先例是制宪者对司法权范围的理解的一个组成部分。因此，这一裁决在很大程度上依赖于一个公认的历史事实，即先例规范在美国建国时就已经确立并制度化了。此外，据一位评论员说，禁止未发表的意见可能会扰乱联邦法院的运作，因为上诉法院发表的意见中有近80%是未发表的，而且大多数巡回法院的规则否认它们的先例价值。因此，研究尊重先例的规范的发展具有重要而深远的理论和实践意义。

Collaborative Research: The Establishment of Stare Decisis in theAmerican Legal SystemPaul J. Wahlbeck, George Washington University (SES-0550182)Timothy R. Johnson, University of Minnesota (SES-0550276)James F. Spriggs, II, University of California, Davis (SES-0550451)Scholars, judges, and lawyers commonly recognize that stare decisis, the rule that judges follow the rulings in previously decided court opinions, is the central norm underlying the American judiciary. Despite the recognized centrality of stare decisis, however, no social scientific study to date has put forward a comprehensive explanation for why and when it developed. In fact, scholars do not even agree on when the norm of judges respecting precedent became institutionalized in America. This study will provide a theoretical explanation for the origin and development of stare decisis based on the idea that informal political norms, such as stare decisis, result from the strategic choices of decision makers. The researchers will test the predictions derived from their theory using rigorous quantitative tests on data drawn from court opinions issued by colonial courts, state supreme courts, and federal courts (U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Circuit Courts, and Federal District Courts) from the earliest reported colonial court opinions through 1890. The emergence and development of stare decisis in America is an example of the more general phenomena of institutional creation and development. Scholars, including Douglass North, have defined institutions as the rules of the game in society, or more formally, constraints that shape human interaction. Because of their importance for structuring human behavior, there has been a wealth of scholarship aimed at understanding the origin and development of institutional rules as agents of political, economic, and social change. Indeed, in the eyes of many scholars the question of where institutions come from and how they develop is one of the most important puzzles confronting social science. By developing a theoretical framework and accompanying empirical tests to understand how the U.S. court system developed this institutional rule, the researchers will be able to explain the origin and development of the most important piece of judicial infrastructure in America. In addition to the theoretical importance of understanding how and why stare decisis originated and developed, this study also has real-world, implications. Consider Anastasoff v. U.S. (2000), where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that its own practice of issuing unpublished opinions, which cannot be cited as precedent, violates Article III of the U.S. Constitution because the norm of respecting precedent is a constitutionally-binding rule. The majority based this holding, in part, on a historical assertion that stare decisis was an integral element of the Framers understanding of the scope of judicial power. This ruling thus largely turned on an asserted historical fact that the norm of precedent was established and already institutionalized at the founding of America. In addition, according to one commentator, the prohibition on unpublished opinions could disrupt the operation of the federal courts since nearly 80% of the opinions issued by the Courts of Appeals are unpublished, and most circuits have rules denying precedential value to them. Thus, this study of the development of a norm respecting precedent has important, and far reaching, theoretical and practical implications.