US Supreme Court Doctrine in the State High Courts

US Supreme Court Doctrine in the State High Courts challenges theoretical and empirical accounts about how state high courts use US Supreme Court doctrine and precedent. Michael Fix and Benjamin Kassow argue that theories that do not account for the full range of ways in which state high courts can act are, by definition, incomplete. Examining three important precedents ? Atkins v. Virginia, Lemon v. Kurtzman, and DC v. Heller/McDonald v. Chicago ? Fix and Kassow find that state high courts commonly ignore Supreme Court precedent for reasons of political ideology, path dependence, and fact patterns in cases that may be of varying similarity to those found in relevant US Supreme Court doctrine. This work, which provides an important addition to the scholarly literature on the impact of Supreme Court decisions, should be read by anyone interested in law and politics or traditional approaches to the study of legal decision-making.

1. Introduction; 2. Role of Precedent; 3. Theory of Precedent Usage; 4. Conceptualizing and Measuring; 5. Responses to Atkins v. Virginia; 6. Usage of Lemon v. Kurtzman; 7. Responses to Heller & McDonald; 8. Concluding Thoughts; References; Index.

Michael P. Fix is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Georgia State University. His research focuses on the evolution of law and policy over time. His work has appeared in numerous political science journals and law reviews including Political Research Quarterly, Social Science Quarterly, Vanderbilt Law Review, and Justice System Journal.
Benjamin J. Kassow is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and Public Administration at the University of North Dakota. His research focuses on how judges formulate opinions and the impact of judicial decisions, broadly defined. He has published articles in a variety of journals, including Political Research Quarterly, American Politics Research, and the Journal of Law and Courts.