A Theory of Judicial Retirement

For over 50 years, narrative and empirical accounts of judicial retirement have selected variables on a range of unstated assumptions, with discordant results. This paper introduces a formal model in which the justices, the President and the Senate are rational agents who aim to shift the median ideology of the Court as close as possible to their own ideologies. The model shows that the probability of retirement depends on a set of personal, contextual and political variables. It provides a more rigorous theory for the effect of extant variables, reveals erroneous conclusions in the literature, and identifies variables that have not been previously appreciated, such as the ideologies of the non-retiring justices and whether the ideology of the retiring justice is moderate or extreme. This more complete explanation of strategic judicial retirements raises empirically testable predictions to differentiate among the disparate findings of the existing literature.

[1]  Álvaro E. Bustos,et al.  Communicating judicial retirement , 2015 .

[2]  Álvaro E. Bustos,et al.  Strategic Judicial Preference Revelation , 2012, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[3]  Ryan C. Black,et al.  US Supreme Court Agenda Setting and the Role of Litigant Status , 2012 .

[4]  Joshua B. Fischman,et al.  Estimating Preferences of Circuit Judges: A Model of Consensus Voting , 2010, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[5]  R. Stolzenberg,et al.  Retirement and death in office of U.S. Supreme Court justices , 2010, Demography.

[6]  Ryan J. Owens,et al.  Justices and Legal Clarity: Analyzing the Complexity of U.S. Supreme Court Opinions , 2010 .

[7]  B. Jones,et al.  Does congress realign or smoothly adjust? A discrete switching model of congressional partisan regimes , 2010 .

[8]  Georg Vanberg,et al.  The Value of Vagueness: Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions , 2008 .

[9]  V. Baird Answering the Call of the Court: How Justices and Litigants Set the Supreme Court Agenda , 2007 .

[10]  Jennifer F. Reinganum,et al.  Speaking up: A Model of Judicial Dissent and Discretionary Review , 2002, Supreme Court Economic Review.

[11]  David C. Nixon,et al.  Judicial Retirement Strategies , 2000 .

[12]  James F. Spriggs,et al.  Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game , 2000 .

[13]  Christopher Zorn,et al.  A Competing Risks Model of Supreme Court Vacancies, 1789–1992 , 2000 .

[14]  Gregory A. Caldeira,et al.  Sophisticated voting and gate-keeping in the supreme court , 1999 .

[15]  Charles R. Shipan,et al.  The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations: A Theory of Institutional Constraints and Choices , 1999 .

[16]  S. Brenner The myth that justices strategically retire , 1999 .

[17]  Emerson H. Tiller,et al.  Judicial Partisanship and Obedience to Legal Doctrine: Whistleblowing on the Federal Courts of Appeals , 1998 .

[18]  Emerson H. Tiller,et al.  Invitations to override: Congressional reversals of supreme court decisions , 1996 .

[19]  Emerson H. Tiller,et al.  Congressional Control of the Courts: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Expansion of the Federal Judiciary , 1996, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[20]  Gary Zuk,et al.  The Federal Judiciary and Institutional Change , 1996 .

[21]  James F. Spriggs,et al.  Calling It Quits: Strategic Retirement on the Federal Courts of Appeals, 1893-1991 , 1995 .

[22]  Lee Epstein,et al.  The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions, and Developments , 1994 .

[23]  Timothy M. Hagle Strategic retirements: A political model of turnover on the United States Supreme Court , 1993 .

[24]  E. P. Schwartz Policy, Precedent, and Power: A Positive Theory of Supreme Court Decision-making , 1992 .

[25]  Jeffrey A. Segal,et al.  A Spatial Model of Roll Call Voting: Senators, Constituents, Presidents, and Interest Groups in Supreme Court Confirmations , 1992 .

[26]  P. Spiller,et al.  A Rational Choice Theory of Supreme Court Statutory Decisions with Applications to the State Farm and Grove City Cases , 1990 .

[27]  C. Cameron,et al.  Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees: A Neoinstitutional Model , 1990, American Political Science Review.

[28]  Gary Zuk,et al.  An Institutional Analysis of Turnover in the Lower Federal Courts, 1900- 1987 , 1990, The Journal of Politics.

[29]  P. Squire Politics and personal factors in retirement from the United States Supreme Court , 1988 .

[30]  Gary King PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT , 1987 .

[31]  S. Ulmer Supreme Court Appointments as a Poisson Distribution , 1982 .

[32]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.