| dc.description.abstract |
<p>In this project, I examine why the judicial authority of the United States Supreme
Court has increased. I propose a theoretical explanation of endogenous institutional
change at the Court whereby the actions of the Court---specifically its decisions
and the opinions in which it announces those decisions---have, over the long-run,
altered the structures of the American separation-of-powers system. The Court has
built up public support for the institution of judicial review to such a degree that
its rulings are respected even when opposed by strong political actors---including
the public. I evaluate this theory by analyzing three important transitional periods
of Supreme Court history. The first case study explores the Court under Chief Justice
John Marshall, and examines how the Court established judicial review as the most
important means of constitutional interpretation. The second case study explores the
Court's first cases interpreting the three Reconstruction Amendments, and shows that
through these decisions the Court established itself as the arbiter of the meaning
of these new amendments. The third case study looks at the Court's decision to hear
reapportionment cases and its articulation of the political question doctrine that
provided a legalistic method of expanding the political power of the Court. I conclude
from these case studies that my theory provides a useful explanation for the expansion
of judicial authority.</p>
|
|
