Agenda Dynamics in the U.S. Federal Courts
Open Access
- Author:
- Rice, Douglas Ralph
- Graduate Program:
- Political Science
- Degree:
- Doctor of Philosophy
- Document Type:
- Dissertation
- Date of Defense:
- June 10, 2013
- Committee Members:
- Christopher Jon Zorn, Dissertation Advisor/Co-Advisor
Christopher Jon Zorn, Committee Chair/Co-Chair
Burt Monroe Iii, Committee Member
Marie Hojnacki, Committee Member
Jeffery Todd Ulmer, Special Member - Keywords:
- courts
agenda
politics
congress
president
Supreme Court
federal courts
district courts
courts of appeals - Abstract:
- The attention an institution such as the Supreme Court pays to any issue area is linked to other institutions' attention to that issue. For this reason, scholars studying issue attention have emphasized the importance of focusing on cross-institutional shifts in attention. Yet despite this emphasis on including multiple institutions in such analyses, only rarely have the courts been included, and in those few instances research has been limited to a subset of Supreme Court activity. With the courts omitted, two separate perspectives have emerged on issue attention dynamics both within the judicial hierarchy and between the courts and other institutions. In the first view, the courts are portrayed as passive implementers of policy, with attention in the courts following attention in other institutions. Contrary to this perspective, an emerging literature suggests the courts can be used by litigants and interest groups to proactively shift issue attention across institutions. Whether the courts are an agenda setter or simply reactive is a question unresolved by scholars, and one with important implications for policymakers. Can interest groups encourage attention through the judiciary, as some scholars urge them to do? Can citizens directly impact the attention of government through their involvement in the courts? Do judges encourage attention for unresolved issues in the law? In sum, what part do the federal courts play in the policy process? To answer these questions, I integrate the judiciary into our understanding of the policy process. In particular, I examine changes in the issue attention of the litigants, judges and interest groups within the federal courts and document the relationships in issue attention among these actors. In order to study these patterns in issue attention for actors within the judiciary, I utilize a variety of natural language processing and machine learning methods for information extraction and topic modelling tasks. Then, I move beyond the context of the courts and also test competing theories of how the policy attention and activity of these actors within the courts impacts or is impacted by attention to policy in Congress and the executive branch. In so doing, this study provides the broadest examination to date of the influence of courts in the formation of public policy as well as the broad dynamics of issue attention in American government. I have collected information on the issues addressed in over 10 million cases at all levels of the federal court system in the United States. Such comprehensive information on the issues which the federal courts are addressing permits previously impossible analyses of how changes in government policies percolate throughout the different institutions of the federal government. In these analyses, I uncover evidence supporting both proactive and passive courts perspectives, with the dynamics of issue attention contingent on the actors and issue areas under consideration. Within the judicial hierarchy, the research provides evidence suggesting the Supreme Court settles areas of increasing litigation, while also signalling interest groups and judges about areas the Court considers a priority. Across institutions, the evidence indicates issue attention relationships vary considerably across issue areas and actors, with the courts actually leading other institutions in attention to particular issue areas in the time period under study. In all, the research suggests federal courts systematically matter for the issue attention of institutions of American government.