Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant: The Road (not) Taken: Selection of Legal Rules on the U.S. Supreme Court

当美国最高法院审理一个案件时，它不仅要决定谁赢谁输，还要决定什么样的法律规则可以证明这个结果是正当的。事实上，正是这一规则- -意见中界定合法和非法行为的语言- -而不是案件结果构成了法院。美国的政策，并影响许多其他政治行动者的后续行为。与大多数关于法律规则的工作不同，该项目认识到法官通常从有限的选项中选择他们所选择的规则。因此，它是第一批提出法官？对规则的选择，至少在一定程度上是由规则本身的性质所驱动的。该项目特别探讨了三个问题：法官如何在呈现给他们的法律规则中进行选择？潜在规则的特殊性和法律合理性在他们的决定中发挥了什么作用？这些规则属性如何与下级法院对政策影响、意见质量和遵从性的关注相互作用？为了回答这些问题，该项目产生了原始的定量和定性数据，包括案件参与者向法官建议的实际法律规则的第一次收集。这个数据集跨越50年，包括一系列法律问题，可能会对那些更广泛地研究法律规则、法院意见和司法决策的人感兴趣。当结合对汉堡法院几位成员（1969-1985）的私人文件的审查时，该项目应有助于阐明最高法院法官在多大程度上受到政策结果、政策遵从和法理考虑的激励，从而为正在进行的关于法律和政治对美国最高法院的相对影响的辩论提供新的见解。

When the United States Supreme Court hears a case, it must determine not only who wins and loses, but what legal rule justifies that result. In fact, it is this rule - the language in the opinion that defines legal and illegal conduct - not the case outcome that constitutes the Court?s policy and influences the subsequent behavior of numerous other political actors. Unlike most work on legal rules, this project recognizes that justices normally select their chosen rule from a limited range of proffered options. Consequently, it is among the first to argue that the justices? choices over rules are driven, at least in part, by the nature of the rules themselves. In particular, the project explores three questions: How do the justices select among the legal rules presented to them? What role does the specificity and legal soundness of the potential rules play in their decision? How do these rule attributes interact with concerns about policy impact, opinion quality, and compliance in the lower courts?To answer these questions, the project generates original quantitative and qualitative data, including the first collection of the actual legal rules suggested to the justices by case participants. This dataset spans five decades, includes a range of legal issues, and is likely to be of interest to those who study legal rules, court opinions, and judicial decision-making more broadly. When combined with an examination of the private papers of several members of the Burger Court (1969-1985), the project should help illuminate the extent to which Supreme Court justices are motivated by policy outcome, policy compliance, and jurisprudential concerns, thus offering new insights into ongoing debates about the relative influence of law and politics on the U.S. Supreme Court.