Course Syllabus Course Information PSCI 6311 Fall 2011 Law and Courts Proseminar W 7-9:45 pm Green 3.

606 Office Hours: 5:30-7:30 W and after class. Professor Contact Information Linda Camp Keith 972-883-6481 linda.keith@utdallas.edu Green 3.818 Course Pre-requisites, Co-requisites, and/or Other Restrictions This is a graduate course. Students should be enrolled in a graduate program or have appropriate permissions. Course Description (3 semester hours): The purpose of this graduate seminar is to survey the different areas of empirical/quantitative research in the subfield of judicial politics. The course will assess the courts as political institutions and examine the interactions between the judiciary and other institutions. We will address the core theoretical debates and assess key methodological issues concerning judicial decision-making in the U.S. context. We will also place these debates within the growing body of comparative judicial behavior literature. Student Learning Objectives/Outcomes Upon completing this course, students will be able to fulfill the following objectives: 1. Will understand the current theoretical and methodological debates in regard to judicial behavior and judicial politics. 2. Will be able to assess and apply important theoretical and scholarly approaches to explain judicial behavior and politics in the political context of the United States, as well as a comparative and international context. Required Textbooks Lee Epstein and Jack Knight. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington D.C.: CQ Press. ISBN: 1568022263 Other required readings are listed below. Most of these will be on electric reserves. I cannot post the password in the syllabus but will post it on elearning. Grading Policy

GRADING SCALE: A = 94-100% B+ = 88-89% B- = 80-83% C = 74-77% F = Below 70 A- = 90-93% B = 84-87% C+ = 78-79% C- = 70-73%

GRADING COMPONENTS: 50% Research Paper or Final Exam 30% Two Critical Essays and Online Exercise/Writing Assignment 20% Participation PARTICIPATION: Students are expected to read all of the assigned readings and to come to class prepared to contribute significantly to the discussion of these materials. Additionally, each week all students are responsible for writing two potential discussion questions for the readings. The questions should be thought-provoking and written to stimulate scholarly conversation. The questions should be emailed to me as a Word document by noon on the day of the assigned readings. I will compile a list that to be used by me and the class facilitator(s) for that day. I will try to post copies of the list of questions by 3 or 4 pm in the afternoon. CRITICAL ESSAYS: Students will be required to write two essays critically assessing one of the specific areas of the literature we are covering in the seminar. The essays should be approximately two to three pages, single space in length. These essays should critically assess the contributions of readings within the issue area, examining the theoretical development of that particular area and assessing the appropriateness of the methodology employed to test the theoretical questions, as well as suggesting ways in which the research could be improved or expanded upon in future work. Student(s) who write the critical review essay for the weeks readings will be expected to facilitate class discussion of that weeks readings. Students will sign up for two weeks the first session we meet. Papers are due at the beginning of class. No late papers will be accepted. Students will engage in an online exercise and writing assignment for the class of November 24th in lieu of the in-class seminar that night. More instructions to follow. RESEARCH PAPER OPTION: If you are planning on writing a dissertation in the Law & Court field then you should treat this paper as the beginning exploration of a dissertation topic. You will complete an article length paper of publishable quality on a topic of your choosing covering courts. There are two requirements for this paper: (a) you must generate a testable hypothesis and (b) you must test the hypothesis using data. I can provide you with a guide to available datasets. I will provide you with further details as the semester progresses. Students will make a short presentation and their paper will be due on Wed. Novemeber 30th. EXAM OPTION: This option is appropriate if you do not plan on pursuing further research in Law & Courts. The final exam will be a comprehensive take home essay exam, with some

constrained choice. Take home exams will be due by email no later than December 14th. Exam questions will be given out two weeks before the due date.

Course & Instructor Policies Missed Class: If students have to miss class for a university-accepted reason, they must prepare a critical review essay on the assigned readings for the class that was missed. Students must contact me prior to the beginning of the missed class. At that point I will assign a due date for the make-up paper will typically be no later than one week from the missed class period. Elearning: Students should consult the class elearning website for announcements and updates to the syllabus. Please note that I do not answer email through learning email, chat rooms or discussion boards, but students are welcome to communicate with each other using these tools. If you email me, use your UTD email and email me at my address above. Additional UT DALLAS Policies may be found at: http://go.utdallas.edu/syllabus-policies

TOPICS AND READING ASSIGNMENTS WEEK ONE (August 24) Introduction to the Course WEEK TWO (August 31) Why Study Courts? 1. Martin Shapiro. 1981. Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ch. 1. 2. Paul Milgrom, Douglass North, and Barry Weingast. 1990. The Role of Institutions in the Revival of Trade: The Law Merchant, Private Judges, and the Champagne Fairs, Economics and Politics 2: 1-23. 3. Ginsburg, Thomas and Tamir Moustafa (eds.). 2008. Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes. New York: Cambridge University Press, Introduction, pp. 1-22. 4. Martin Shapiro and Alec Stone Sweet. On Law, Politics, and Judicialization. Ch. 1 (Law Courts and Social Science) WEEK THREE (September 7)

How to Study Courts? 1. Tiller, Emerson, and Frank B. Cross. 2006. What is Legal Doctrine? Northwestern University Law Review 100:517-33. 2. Friedman, Barry. 2006. Taking Law Seriously. Perspectives on Politics 4:261-76. 3. Lee Epstein and Gary King. 2002. The Rules of Inference." University of Chicago Law Review. 69: 1-133. 4. Lee Epstein, Jack Knight, and Olga Shvetsova. 2001. The Role of Constitutional Courts in the Establishment and Maintenance of Democratic Systems of Government. Law & Society Review 35(1): 117-63 ---Major Topics in Studying Courts --WEEK FOUR (September 14) Judicial Decision Making (Attitudinal Approaches: Theoretical Debates and Measurement Issues) 1. Jeffrey Segal and Harold Spaeth. 2002. Supreme Court & the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Chapter 2 & pp. 86-97. 2. Howard Gillman. 2001. "What's Law Got to Do with It? Judicial Behavioralists Test the 'LegalModel' of Judicial Decision Making," Law & Social Inquiry 26: 465-504. 3. Eileen Braman and Thomas E. Nelson. 2007. Mechanism of Motivated Reasoning? Analogical Perception in Discrimination. American Journal of Political Science 51: 940-956. 4. Jeffrey A. Segal, Lee Epstein, Charles M. Cameron, and Harold J. Spaeth. 1995. "Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Revisited," Journal of Politics 57: 812823. WEEK FIVE (September 11) Judicial Decision Making (Attitudinal ApproachesMeasurement Issues and Empirical Evidence) 1. Jennifer L. Peresie. 2005. Female Judges Matter: Gender and Collegial Decisionmaking in the Federal Appellate Courts, Yale Law Journal 114: 1759-1790.

2. Nancy Scherer and Banks Miller. 2009. The Federalist Societys Impact on the Federal Judiciary, Political Research Quarterly 62: 366-378. 3. Paul Brace, Laura Langer, and Melinda Gann Hall. 2000. Measuring the Preferences of State Supreme Court Judges. Journal of Politics 62: 387-413. 4. Linda Camp Keith, Jennifer S. Holmes, and Banks Miller. 2011. U.S. Asylum Decisions: Who You Face on the Bench Is as Important as What You Face Back Home. Unpublished manuscript. WEEK SIX (September 28) Judicial Decision Making (Strategic Approach Theoretical Perspectives) 1. Lee Epstein and Jack Knight. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Ch. 1. 2. Forrest Maltzman, James Spriggs II, & Paul Wahlbeck. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court. Ch . 1 3. Clifford Carruba, Matthew Gabel and Charles Hankla. 2008. Judicial Behavior under Political Constraints: Evidence from the European Court of Justice, American Political Science Review 102: 435-52.

WEEK SEVEN (October 5) Judicial Decision Making (Strategic ApproachEvidence) 1. Paul J. Wahlbeck, James F. Spriggs II, and Forrest Maltzman. 1998. Marshalling the Court: Bargaining and Accommodation on the United States Supreme Court, American Journal of Political Science 42: 294-315. 2. Lee Epstein and Jack Knight, The Choices Justices Make. Ch. 3, 4, 7 pp. 138-157. 3. Virginia A. Hettinger, Stefanie A. Lindquist, and Wendy L. Martinek. 2004. Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals, American Journal of Political Science 48: 123-137. 4. Anna Harvey and Barry Friedman. 2009. Ducking Trouble: Congressionally Induced Selection Bias in the Supreme Courts Agenda, Journal of Politics 71: 574-592. WEEK EIGHT (October 12) Judicial Decision Making (Influence of the Law)

1. Mark J. Richards and Herbert M. Kritzer. 2002. Judicial Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making, American Political Science Review 96: 305-320. 2. Michael A. Bailey and Forrest Maltzman. 2008. Does Legal Doctrine Matter? Unpacking Law and Policy Preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court, American Political Science Review 102: 369-384. 3. Donald R. Songer, Martha Humphries Ginn, and Tammy Sarver. 2003. Do Judges Follow the Law When There is No Fear of Reversal? Justice System Journal 24: 137-161. 4. Linda Camp Keith and Jennifer S. Holmes. 2009. Determinants of Asylum Grants: A Rare Examination of Factors Typically Unobservable in U.S. Asylum Decisions? Journal of Refugee Studies 22: 224-241. ---Other Concerns with Courts --WEEK NINE (October 19) Selecting Judges 1. Huber, Gregory A., and Sanford C. Gordon. 2004. Accountability and Coercion: Is Justice Blind when it Runs for Office? American Journal of Political Science 48: 247_263. 2. Hall, Melinda Gann. 2001. State Supreme Courts in Americna Democracy: Probing the Myths of Judicial Reform, American Political Science Review 95: 315-330. 3. Scherer, Nancy, Brandon Bartels and Amy Steigerwalt. 2008. Sounding the Fire Alarm: The Role of Interest Groups in the Lower Federal Court Confirmation Process, Journal of Politics 70: 1026-1039. 4. Epstein, Lee, Ren Lindstdt, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Chad Westerland. 2006. The Changing Dynamics of Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees. Journal of Politics 68 (May): 296307. WEEK TEN (October 26) Courts and Public Opinion 1. Kevin T. McGuire and James A. Stimson. 2004. The Least Dangerous Branch Revisited: New Evidence on Supreme Court Responsiveness to Public Preferences. Journal of Politics 66: 1018-1035. 2. Vanessa Baird and Debra Javeline. 2010. The Persuasive Power of Russian Courts, Political Research Quarterly 60: 429-42. 3. Lee Epstein and Jack Knight, The Choices Justices Make (1998), pp. 157-177.

4. Durr, Robert H., Andrew D. Martin, and Christina Wolbrecht. 2000. Ideological Divergence and Public Support for the Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science 44(October): 768-776. WEEK ELEVEN (November 2) Agenda Setting 1. Ryan Black and Ryan Owens. 2009. Agenda-Setting in the Supreme Court: The Collision of Policy and Jurisprudence, Journal of Politics 71: 1062-1075. 2. Gregory Caldeira and John Wright. 1988. Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court, American Political Science Review 82: 1109-27. 3. H.W. Perry. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Ch. 1, 9 & 10. ---International and Comparative Courts --WEEK TWELVE (November 9) Constitutional Courts and International Courts 1. Powell, Emilia Justyna and Sara McLaughlin Mitchell. 2007. The International Court of Justice and the World's Three Legal Systems. The Journal of Politics 69: 397-415. 2. Sara McLaughlin Mitchell and Paul R. Hensel. 2007. International Institutions and Compliance with Agreements American Journal of Political Science 51 (4): 721737. 3. Erik Voeten. 2008. The Impartiality of International Judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights, American Political Science Review 102: 417-433. WEEK THIRTEEN (November 16) JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND REFORM 1. Prillaman, William C. 2000. The Judiciary and Democratic Decay in Latin America: Declining Confidence in the Rule of Law. Ch. 1 (Toward a Theory of Judicial Reform, Ch. 2 (Building a Healthy Judiciary) and Ch. 5 (Argentina: Opposite Path, Same Results). 2. Jeff Staton. 2006. Constitutional Review and the Selective Promotion of Case Results, American Journal of Political Science 50: 98-112. WEEK FOURTEEN (November 23)

JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE (Measurement and Empirical) ONLINE ACTIVITY in lieu of class:

Linda Camp Keith. 2011. Political Repression: Courts and Law. Penn Press. Ch. 4 (Judicial Independence) WEEK FIFTEEN (November 30) Courts in Emerging Democracies and Authoritarian Regimes Research Presentations 1. Ginsburg, Thomas and Tamir Moustafa (eds.). 2008. Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes. New York: Cambridge University Press, Ch. 5 (Law and Resistance in Authoritarian States) and Ch. 13 (Courts in Authoritarian Regimes). Also bring notes/reading from week two. 2. Mondlane, Luis. 2003. Mozambique: Nurturing Justice from Liberation Zones to a Stable Democratic State. In An-Naim, Human Rights under African Constitutions: Realizing the Promise for Ourselves. Philadelphia: Penn Press. 3. Peter Vondoepp. 2006. Politics and Judicial Assertiveness in Emerging Democracies: High Court Behavior in Malawi and Zambia. Political Research Quarterly 59 (3): 389-399.

TAKEHOME FINAL DUE by email: December 14 (4 pm)