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

合作研究：在美国法律体系中确立盯着判例保罗·J·沃尔贝克，乔治华盛顿大学(SES-0550182)明尼苏达大学Timothy R.Johnson，明尼苏达大学(SES-0550276)James F.Spriggs，II，加州大学戴维斯分校(SES-0550451)学者、法官和律师普遍认识到，盯着判例，即法官遵循先前判决的法院意见中的裁决的规则，是美国司法制度的核心准则。然而，尽管人们认识到凝视先例的中心地位，但到目前为止，还没有一项社会科学研究对它为什么以及何时发展提出全面的解释。事实上，对于法官尊重先例的规范何时在美国制度化，学者们甚至都没有达成一致意见。本研究基于非正式政治规范，如凝视先例，是决策者战略选择的结果，为凝视先例的起源和发展提供理论上的解释。研究人员将对殖民法院、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)从1890年最早报道的殖民法院意见中提取的数据进行严格的定量测试，以检验从他们的理论中得出的预测。STARE先例在美国的出现和发展是制度产生和发展的更普遍现象的一个例子。包括道格拉斯·诺斯在内的学者将制度定义为社会中的游戏规则，或者更正式地说，是塑造人类互动的约束。由于它们对于构建人类行为的重要性，已经有了大量的学术研究，旨在了解作为政治、经济和社会变革推动者的制度规则的起源和发展。的确，在许多学者看来，制度从哪里来、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伴随的经验测试来理解美国法院系统是如何制定这一制度规则的，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。这项研究不仅对理解凝视先例的起源和发展具有重要的理论意义，而且还具有现实意义。以Anastasoff诉U.S.(2000)一案为例，美国第八巡回上诉法院在该案中裁定，其发布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具有宪法约束力的规则。多数人认为，这种观点部分是基于一种历史断言，即凝视先例是制定者对司法权范围的理解的一个组成部分。因此，这项裁决在很大程度上是基于一个断言的历史事实，即先例的规范在美国建国时就已经确立并制度化了。此外，根据一位评论员的说法，禁止未发表的意见可能会扰乱联邦法院的运作，因为上诉法院发布的意见中有近80%是未发表的，而且大多数巡回上诉法院都有拒绝对它们具有先例价值的规则。因此，对尊重先例的规范发展的研究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.