How do Supreme Court justices decide their cases? Do they follow their
policy preferences? Or are they constrained by the law and by other
political actors? The Constrained Court combines new theoretical
insights and extensive data analysis to show that law and politics
together shape the behavior of justices on the Supreme Court.
Michael Bailey and Forrest Maltzman show how two types of constraints
have influenced the decision making of the modern Court. First, Bailey
and Maltzman document that important legal doctrines, such as respect
for precedents, have influenced every justice since 1950. The authors
find considerable variation in how these doctrines affect each justice,
variation due in part to the differing experiences justices have brought
to the bench. Second, Bailey and Maltzman show that justices are
constrained by political factors. Justices are not isolated from what
happens in the legislative and executive branches, and instead respond
in predictable ways to changes in the preferences of Congress and the
president.
The Constrained Court shatters the myth that justices are
unconstrained actors who pursue their personal policy preferences at all
costs. By showing how law and politics interact in the construction of
American law, this book sheds new light on the unique role that the
Supreme Court plays in the constitutional order.
