Generative Dynamics of Supreme Court Citations: Analysis with a New Statistical Network Model

The significance and influence of US Supreme Court majority opinions derive in large part from opinions’ roles as precedents for future opinions. A growing body of literature seeks to understand what drives the use of opinions as precedents through the study of Supreme Court case citation patterns. We raise two limitations of existing work on Supreme Court citations. First, dyadic citations are typically aggregated to the case level before they are analyzed. Second, citations are treated as if they arise independently. We present a methodology for studying citations between Supreme Court opinions at the dyadic level, as a network, that overcomes these limitations. This methodology—the citation exponential random graph model, for which we provide user-friendly software—enables researchers to account for the effects of case characteristics and complex forms of network dependence in citation formation. We then analyze a network that includes all Supreme Court cases decided between 1950 and 2015. We find evidence for dependence processes, including reciprocity, transitivity, and popularity. The dependence effects are as substantively and statistically significant as the effects of exogenous covariates, indicating that models of Supreme Court citation should incorporate both the effects of case characteristics and the structure of past citations. This work was supported in part by NSF grants SES-1558661, SES-1637089, SES-1619644, and CISE-1320219. We thank Rachael Hinkle, Benjamin Kassow, Lauren Santoro, and Michael Nelson for helpful feedback on this project. The replication code and data for this paper can be found at Schmid, Chen and Desmarais (2021). Department of Statistics, The Pennsylvania State University, schmid@psu.edu Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, ted.hsuanyun.chen@gmail.com Department of Political Science, The Pennsylvania State University, bdesmarais@psu.edu 1 ar X iv :2 10 1. 07 19 7v 1 [ st at .A P] 1 5 Ja n 20 21

[1]  Strategic Citations to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court , 2013, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[2]  P. Pattison,et al.  New Specifications for Exponential Random Graph Models , 2006 .

[3]  Frank B. Cross,et al.  Determinants of Citations to Supreme Court Opinions (And the Remarkable Influence of Justice Scalia) , 2010, Supreme Court Economic Review.

[4]  B. Desmarais,et al.  Standing the Test of Time: The Breadth of Majority Coalitions and the Fate of U.S. Supreme Court Precedents , 2012 .

[5]  Peter F. Krogh.  Precedent on International Courts : A Network Analysis of Case Citations by the European Court of Human Rights , 2010 .

[6]  James F. Spriggs,et al.  Explaining the Overruling of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent , 2001, The Journal of Politics.

[7]  Gregory A. Caldeira.  Legal precedent: Structures of communication between state supreme courts , 1988 .

[8]  Andrew D. Martin,et al.  Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999 , 2002, Political Analysis.

[9]  Michael A. Bailey,et al.  The Constrained Court: Law, Politics, and the Decisions Justices Make , 2011 .

[10]  Sumit Mukherjee,et al.  Degeneracy in sparse ERGMs with functions of degrees as sufficient statistics , 2013 .

[11]  Howard Gillman,et al.  What's Law Got to Do with It? Judicial Behavioralists Test the “Legal Model” of Judicial Decision Making , 2001, Law & Social Inquiry.

[12]  Michael P. Fix,et al.  The Effect of Opinion Readability on the Impact of U.S. Supreme Court Precedents in State High Courts , 2020 .

[13]  D. J. Strauss,et al.  Pseudolikelihood Estimation for Social Networks , 1990 .

[14]  D. Hunter,et al.  Inference in Curved Exponential Family Models for Networks , 2006 .

[15]  Marina G. Duque.  Recognizing International Status: A Relational Approach , 2018 .

[16]  E. Voeten,et al.  Precedent in International Courts: A Network Analysis of Case Citations by the European Court of Human Rights , 2011, British Journal of Political Science.

[17]  James F. Spriggs,et al.  The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court , 2006 .

[18]  J. Harvie Wilkinson,et al.  The Rehnquist Court at Twilight: The Lures and Perils of Split-the-Difference Jurisprudence , 2006 .

[19]  Stella M. Rouse,et al.  Networks in the Legislative Arena: How Group Dynamics Affect Cosponsorship , 2011 .

[20]  Krzysztof J. Pelc,et al.  The Politics of Precedent in International Law: A Social Network Application , 2014, American Political Science Review.

[21]  Albert Yoon,et al.  A Rose by Any Other Name: Understanding Judicial Decisions that Do Not Cite Precedent , 2018, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

[22]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[23]  Jennifer Chayes.  Mathematics of Web science: structure, dynamics and incentives , 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[24]  C. Butts.  A Relational Event Framework for Social Action , 2010 .

[25]  Philippe Meister,et al.  The Gender Readings Gap in Political Science Graduate Training , 2019, The Journal of Politics.

[26]  Benjamin Pomerance,et al.  Center of Order: Chief Justice John Roberts and the Coming Struggle for a Respected Supreme Court , 2018 .

[27]  Frank B. Cross,et al.  The Decisional Significance of the Chief Justice , 2006 .

[28]  Oguzhan Dincer,et al.  Does corruption slow down innovation? Evidence from a cointegrated panel of U.S. states , 2019, European Journal of Political Economy.

[29]  Amy L. Atchison.  Negating the Gender Citation Advantage in Political Science , 2017, PS: Political Science & Politics.

[30]  Anja Osei,et al.  Elite Theory and Political Transitions: Networks of Power in Ghana and Togo , 2018, Comparative Politics.

[31]  Does Legal Doctrine Matter? Unpacking Law and Policy Preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court , 2008, American Political Science Review.

[32]  Michael J. Nelson,et al.  The Transmission of Legal Precedent among State Supreme Courts in the Twenty-First Century , 2016, State Politics & Policy Quarterly.

[33]  Martina Morris,et al.  ergm: A Package to Fit, Simulate and Diagnose Exponential-Family Models for Networks. , 2008, Journal of statistical software.

[34]  Mark S Handcock,et al.  Improving Simulation-Based Algorithms for Fitting ERGMs , 2012, Journal of computational and graphical statistics : a joint publication of American Statistical Association, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Interface Foundation of North America.

[35]  Ryan C. Black,et al.  The Citation and Depreciation of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent , 2013 .

[36]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[37]  Maureen T. Hallinan,et al.  Sex and Race Effects of the Response to Intransitive Sentiment Relations , 1990 .

[38]  John F Basiak.  The Roberts Court and the Future of Substantive Due Process: The Demise of "Split-the-Difference" Jurisprudence? , 2006 .

[39]  C. Sunstein,et al.  Trimming , 2021, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology.

[40]  James H. Fowler,et al.  Strategic Citations to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court , 2013, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[41]  Lee Epstein,et al.  The Norm of Stare Decisis , 1996 .

[42]  Daniel Martin Katz,et al.  Law as a seamless web?: comparison of various network representations of the United States Supreme Court corpus (1791-2005) , 2009, ICAIL.

[43]  Bruce A. Desmarais,et al.  Exponential random graph models with big networks: Maximum pseudolikelihood estimation and the parametric bootstrap , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data).

[44]  Carter T. Butts,et al.  4. A Relational Event Framework for Social Action , 2008 .

[45]  J. Hunt,et al.  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 2015 .

[46]  D. Hunter,et al.  Goodness of Fit of Social Network Models , 2008 .

[47]  Michelle L. Dion,et al.  Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields , 2018, Political Analysis.

[48]  Artemus Ward,et al.  The Chief Justice: Appointment and Influence , 2016 .

[49]  Benjamin E. Lauderdale,et al.  Locating Supreme Court Opinions in Doctrine Space: LOCATING SUPREME COURT OPINIONS , 2010 .

[50]  Ufuk Akcigit,et al.  Growth through Heterogeneous Innovations , 2010, Journal of Political Economy.

[51]  Barbara F. Walter,et al.  The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations , 2013, International Organization.

[52]  Stefanie A. Lindquist,et al.  Splitting the Difference: Modeling Appellate Court Decisions with Mixed Outcomes , 2007 .

[53]  Craig W. Thomas,et al.  Use of science in collaborative environmental management: Evidence from local watershed partnerships in the Puget Sound , 2018, Environmental Science & Policy.

[54]  Michael Lissner,et al.  CourtListener.com: A platform for researching and staying abreast of the latest in the law , 2010 .

[55]  Valérie Pattyn,et al.  The knowledge behind Brexit. A bibliographic analysis of ex-ante policy appraisals on Brexit in the United Kingdom and the European Union , 2020, Journal of European Public Policy.

[56]  J. Fowler,et al.  Network Analysis and the Law: Measuring the Legal Importance of Precedents at the U.S. Supreme Court , 2007, Political Analysis.

[57]  H. Kritzer,et al.  Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making , 2002, American Political Science Review.

[58]  P. Holland,et al.  TRANSITIVITY IN STRUCTURAL MODELS OF SMALL GROUPS , 1977 .

[59]  A. Rinaldo,et al.  CONSISTENCY UNDER SAMPLING OF EXPONENTIAL RANDOM GRAPH MODELS. , 2011, Annals of statistics.

[60]  M. Handcock.  Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology Assessing Degeneracy in Statistical Models of Social Networks , 2005 .

[61]  Bruce A. Desmarais,et al.  A Critique of Dyadic Design , 2015, 1512.00538.

[62]  S. Strogatz.  Exploring complex networks , 2001, Nature.

[63]  S. Goodreau,et al.  Birds of a feather, or friend of a friend? using exponential random graph models to investigate adolescent social networks* , 2009, Demography.

[64]  Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier,et al.  The evolution and formation of amicus curiae networks , 2014, Soc. Networks.

[65]  Andrew D. Martin,et al.  Endogenous Jurisprudential Regimes , 2012, Political Analysis.

[66]  Michael Berlemann,et al.  Disposition time and the utilization of prior judicial decisions: Evidence from a civil law country , 2020, International Review of Law and Economics.

[67]  Paul M. Collins,et al.  Amici Curiae and Dissensus on the U.S. Supreme Court , 2008 .

[68]  Krzysztof J. Pelc.  The Politics of Precedent in International Law: A Social Network Application—ERRATUM , 2014, American Political Science Review.

[69]  Michael A. Levy,et al.  gwdegree: Improving interpretation of geometrically-weighted degree estimates in exponential random graph models , 2016, J. Open Source Softw..

[70]  James H. Fowler,et al.  Abstract Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Social Networks 30 (2008) 16–30 The authority of Supreme Court precedent , 2022 .

[71]  Michael A. Bailey,et al.  Does Legal Doctrine Matter? Unpacking Law and Policy Preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court , 2008, American Political Science Review.

[72]  C. D. Gelatt,et al.  Optimization by Simulated Annealing , 1983, Science.

[73]  Bruce A. Desmarais,et al.  Science Use in Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Effects of Political Attention and Controversy , 2015, ArXiv.

[74]  Emily Erikson,et al.  Formalist and Relationalist Theory in Social Network Analysis , 2013 .