Sandra L. Wood

Acclimation effects for Supreme Court Justices: A cross-validation, 1888-1940

Theory: As they learn a new role, Justices experience an initial period of adjustment to the Supreme Court, which creates voting instability. Hypothesis: Justices during the time 1888-1940 are more likely to experience acclimation effects than those in the modem era. Those with judicial experience, however, may not experience such shifts. Methods: Difference of means tests are employed to consider the differences in voting behavior between the first two years of a justices tenure on the Court and the remaining years. Results: Twenty-five freshman justices from 1888-1940 experienced a weaker acclimation effect than those in the modern era. Those who lacked judicial experience were particularly prone to experience acclimation effects, especially in judicial power cases.

The Supreme Court, 1888-1940: An Empirical Overview

Studies of decision making on the modern Supreme Court have drawn on readily available empirical data to explore the details of how the Court conducts its business (Segal and Spaeth 1993; Spaeth 1995). Sadly, however, such empirical studies have not been plentiful for periods of the Court’s history before the appointment of Chief Justice Earl Warren. Some discussion has occurred dating from the chief justiceship of William Howard Taft beginning in 1910, but these studies have limited scope (Bowen and Scheb 1993; Leavitt 1970; Pritchett 1948; Renstrom 1972; Slotnick 1979; Tate and Handberg 1991). The result is a plethora of studies concerning the modern Court and a dearth of systematic information on earlier Courts (Aliotta 1988; Brenner and Spaeth 1995; Epstein and Kobylka 1992; George and Epstein 1992; Handberg 1976; Schubert 1965, 1974; Segal 1984; Tate 1981; Ulmer 1970). The picture we do have concerning earlier Courts is largely drawn from biographical or doctrinal studies. While both of these enterprises are immensely useful, they lack the systematic quality of an empirical analysis that considers all cases (not just the important ones) and all justices (not just the intellectual or social leaders). We seek to create an empirical context out of which those outstanding justices and decisions arose. Our study allows confirmation of findings of previous studies of individuals and doctrine and provides a more complete picture of the Court during a tumultuous time in its history.