Table Of Contentus supreme court doctrine in the state
high courts
USSupremeCourtDoctrineintheStateHighCourtschallengestheoreticaland
empiricalaccountsabouthowstatehighcourtsuseUSSupremeCourtdoctrine
andprecedent.MichaelP.FixandBenjaminJ.Kassowarguethattheoriesthatdo
notaccountforthefullrangeofwaysinwhichstatehighcourtscanactare,by
definition,incomplete.Examiningthreeimportantprecedents–Atkinsv.Virginia,
Lemonv.Kurtzman,andDistrictofColumbiav.Heller/McDonaldv.Chicago–Fix
andKassowfindthatstatehighcourtscommonlyignoreSupremeCourtprecedent
forreasonsofpoliticalideology,pathdependence,andfactpatternsincasesthat
maybeofvaryingsimilaritytothosefoundinrelevantUSSupremeCourtdoctrine.
Thiswork,whichprovidesanimportantadditiontothescholarlyliteratureonthe
impactofSupremeCourtdecisions,shouldbereadbyanyoneinterestedinlaw
andpoliticsortraditionalapproachestothestudyoflegaldecision-making.
Michael P. Fix isAssociateProfessorintheDepartmentofPoliticalScience
at Georgia State University. His research focuses on the evolution of law and
policy over time. His work has appeared in numerous political science journals
andlawreviewsincludingPoliticalResearchQuarterly,SocialScienceQuarterly,
VanderbiltLawReview,andJusticeSystemJournal.
Benjamin J. Kassow is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political
ScienceandPublicAdministrationattheUniversityofNorthDakota.Hisresearch
focuses on how judges formulate opinions and the impact of judicial decisions,
broadly defined. He has published articles in a variety of journals, including
Political Research Quarterly, American Politics Research, and the Journal of Law
andCourts.
US Supreme Court Doctrine in the State
High Courts
MICHAEL P. FIX
GeorgiaStateUniversity
BENJAMIN J. KASSOW
UniversityofNorthDakota
UniversityPrintingHouse,Cambridgecb28bs,UnitedKingdom
OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,ny10006,USA
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,vic3207,Australia
314–321,3rdFloor,Plot3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre,NewDelhi–110025,India
79AnsonRoad,#06–04/06,Singapore079906
CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof
education,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781108835633
doi:10.1017/9781108891141
©MichaelP.FixandBenjaminJ.Kassow2020
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2020
PrintedintheUnitedKingdombyTJInternationalLtd.Padstow,Cornwall
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
names:Fix,MichaelP,1980–author.|Kassow,Benjamin,author.
title:USSupremeCourtdoctrineinthestatehighcourts/MichaelP.Fix,
GeorgiaStateUniversity;BenjaminJ.Kassow,UniversityofNorthDakota
description:NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2020.|Includesbibliographical
referencesandindex.
identifiers:lccn2020009495(print)|lccn2020009496(ebook)|isbn9781108835633
(hardback)|isbn9781108812979(paperback)|isbn9781108891141(epub)
subjects:lcsh:Courtsoflastresort–UnitedStates–States.|
Judicialprocess–UnitedStates–States.|UnitedStates.Supreme
Court–Influence.|Federalgovernment–UnitedStates.|
Staredecisis–UnitedStates.
classification:lcckf8736.f592020(print)|lcckf8736(ebook)|ddc347.73/365–dc23
LCrecordavailableathttps://lccn.loc.gov/2020009495
LCebookrecordavailableathttps://lccn.loc.gov/2020009496
isbn978-1-108-83563-3Hardback
isbn978-1-108-81297-9Paperback
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyof
URLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication
anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,
accurateorappropriate.
InmemoryofHubert andBettySmith
M.P.F.
ForalloftheSouthCarolinapubliclawalums
(past, present,andfuture)
B.J.K.
Contents
ListofFigures pagexi
ListofTables xiii
TableofCases xv
Acknowledgments xxiii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 ATaleofThreeStateCourtDecisions 3
1.2 ANewTheoreticalApproach 6
1.3 ARoadMapfortheBook 9
2 TheRoleofPrecedent:ABriefHistory 13
2.1 TheOriginsofStareDecisis 13
2.1.1 The Earliest Systematic Court Records: Bracton
andtheYearBooks 14
2.1.2 TheGradualModernizationofCaseReporting 16
2.1.3 Precedent and Case Reporting in the American
ColoniesandtheEarlyPost-independencePeriod 19
2.2 TheAdoptionoftheStrongViewofPrecedentinEnglish
andAmericanLaw 22
2.2.1 TowardanAbsoluteViewofPrecedentandBack
Again:EnglandintheNineteenthandTwentieth
Centuries 22
2.2.2 TheViewofPrecedentintheUSCourts 25
2.3 AreStateCourtsBoundtoUSSupremeCourtDecisions? 30
2.3.1 WhenStateandFederalQuestionsAreMixed 34
2.4 Conclusion 38
vii
viii Contents
3 ATheoryofStateHighCourtUsageofUSSupreme
CourtPrecedent 39
3.1 Decision-MakingonStateHighCourts 40
3.2 StateHighCourtsandUSSupremeCourtPrecedent 42
3.3 CoreAssumptions 44
3.4 ATheoryofPrecedentUsagebyStateHighCourts 48
3.5 FromFederalPrecedenttoStatePolicy 55
4 Conceptualizing and Measuring How State High Courts Use
USSupremeCourtOpinions 57
4.1 Brief History of Compliance Studies in Terms of
MeasurementTheory 57
4.2 Newer Research Contributions: The Gift of Shepard’s
Citations 60
4.3 Our Measure of State High Court Responses to US
SupremeCourtPrecedents 64
4.4 DescriptiveFindingsfromThreeEmpiricalApplications 68
5 StateHighCourtResponsestoAtkinsv.Virginia:Characterized
byFlexibility 71
5.1 ABriefHistoryofDeathPenaltyLitigation:
Post-Greggv.Georgia 72
5.2 Intellectual Disability and the Eighth Amendment:
ControversyandResolution 73
5.3 HowStatesHaveDealtwithAtkins 76
5.4 SupremeCourtPost-Atkins 82
5.5 ApplicationofOurTheorytoAtkins 83
5.6 DataandMethods 86
5.7 ResultsandDiscussion 90
5.8 ConcludingThoughts 93
6 StateHighCourtUsageofLemonv.Kurtzman:Examining
aCaseofMaximumDiscretion 96
6.1 ABriefHistoryofEstablishmentClauseJurisprudence 98
6.2 Lemon v. Kurtzman: A (Failed) Attempt at a Universal
Standard 100
6.3 HowStatesHaveDealtwithLemon 104
6.4 ApplicationofOurGeneralTheorytoLemon 109
6.5 DataandMethods 113
6.6 ResultsandDiscussion 115
6.7 ConcludingThoughts 118
Contents ix
7 State High Court Usage of District of Columbia v. Heller and
McDonaldv.CityofChicago:ModerateDegreesofFlexibility 121
7.1 Heller and McDonald: Establishing a Second
AmendmentConstitutional“Floor” 122
7.2 ABriefHistoryofSecondAmendmentCaseLaw 123
7.3 HellerandMcDonald:CasesandImmediateAftermath 126
7.4 ResearchDesignandMethod 128
7.4.1 GeneralTrendsinStateCourtResponsestoHeller
andMcDonald 128
7.5 CaseStudiesinStateHighCourtReactionstoHellerand
McDonald 136
7.5.1 States’CitationsandTreatmentsofHellerPriorto
McDonald 138
7.5.2 Massachusetts’TreatmentsofMcDonaldandHeller
Post-McDonald 140
7.5.3 Illinois’TreatmentsofHellerandMcDonald 146
7.5.4 The Louisiana Supreme Court’s Discussion of
HellerandMcDonald 149
7.6 Conclusion 153
8 ConcludingThoughtsandFutureExtensions 156
8.1 PurposeandGeneralFindingsoftheBook 156
8.2 CaseSelectionConcerns 159
8.2.1 AdditionalNotesonCaseSelection:Aldenv.Maine 160
8.3 SummaryofSpecificFindingsfromOurApplications 161
8.3.1 SummaryofFindingsfromAtkinsChapter 162
8.3.2 SummaryofFindingsfromLemonChapter 163
8.3.3 Summary ofFindings fromSecond Amendment
Chapter 164
8.4 ImplicationsofOurBook 165
8.5 FutureWork 166
Bibliography 169
Index 179
