us supreme court doctrine in the state high courts USSupremeCourtDoctrineintheStateHighCourtschallengestheoreticaland empiricalaccountsabouthowstatehighcourtsuseUSSupremeCourtdoctrine andprecedent.MichaelP.FixandBenjaminJ.Kassowarguethattheoriesthatdo notaccountforthefullrangeofwaysinwhichstatehighcourtscanactare,by definition,incomplete.Examiningthreeimportantprecedents–Atkinsv.Virginia, Lemonv.Kurtzman,andDistrictofColumbiav.Heller/McDonaldv.Chicago–Fix andKassowfindthatstatehighcourtscommonlyignoreSupremeCourtprecedent forreasonsofpoliticalideology,pathdependence,andfactpatternsincasesthat maybeofvaryingsimilaritytothosefoundinrelevantUSSupremeCourtdoctrine. Thiswork,whichprovidesanimportantadditiontothescholarlyliteratureonthe impactofSupremeCourtdecisions,shouldbereadbyanyoneinterestedinlaw andpoliticsortraditionalapproachestothestudyoflegaldecision-making. Michael P. Fix isAssociateProfessorintheDepartmentofPoliticalScience 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 andlawreviewsincludingPoliticalResearchQuarterly,SocialScienceQuarterly, VanderbiltLawReview,andJusticeSystemJournal. Benjamin J. Kassow is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political ScienceandPublicAdministrationattheUniversityofNorthDakota.Hisresearch 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 andCourts. US Supreme Court Doctrine in the State High Courts MICHAEL P. FIX GeorgiaStateUniversity BENJAMIN J. KASSOW UniversityofNorthDakota UniversityPrintingHouse,Cambridgecb28bs,UnitedKingdom OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,ny10006,USA 477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,vic3207,Australia 314–321,3rdFloor,Plot3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre,NewDelhi–110025,India 79AnsonRoad,#06–04/06,Singapore079906 CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge. ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof education,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence. www.cambridge.org Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781108835633 doi:10.1017/9781108891141 ©MichaelP.FixandBenjaminJ.Kassow2020 Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements, noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress. Firstpublished2020 PrintedintheUnitedKingdombyTJInternationalLtd.Padstow,Cornwall AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary. LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData names:Fix,MichaelP,1980–author.|Kassow,Benjamin,author. title:USSupremeCourtdoctrineinthestatehighcourts/MichaelP.Fix, GeorgiaStateUniversity;BenjaminJ.Kassow,UniversityofNorthDakota description:NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2020.|Includesbibliographical referencesandindex. identifiers:lccn2020009495(print)|lccn2020009496(ebook)|isbn9781108835633 (hardback)|isbn9781108812979(paperback)|isbn9781108891141(epub) subjects:lcsh:Courtsoflastresort–UnitedStates–States.| Judicialprocess–UnitedStates–States.|UnitedStates.Supreme Court–Influence.|Federalgovernment–UnitedStates.| Staredecisis–UnitedStates. classification:lcckf8736.f592020(print)|lcckf8736(ebook)|ddc347.73/365–dc23 LCrecordavailableathttps://lccn.loc.gov/2020009495 LCebookrecordavailableathttps://lccn.loc.gov/2020009496 isbn978-1-108-83563-3Hardback isbn978-1-108-81297-9Paperback CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyof URLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain, accurateorappropriate. InmemoryofHubert andBettySmith M.P.F. ForalloftheSouthCarolinapubliclawalums (past, present,andfuture) B.J.K. Contents ListofFigures pagexi ListofTables xiii TableofCases xv Acknowledgments xxiii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 ATaleofThreeStateCourtDecisions 3 1.2 ANewTheoreticalApproach 6 1.3 ARoadMapfortheBook 9 2 TheRoleofPrecedent:ABriefHistory 13 2.1 TheOriginsofStareDecisis 13 2.1.1 The Earliest Systematic Court Records: Bracton andtheYearBooks 14 2.1.2 TheGradualModernizationofCaseReporting 16 2.1.3 Precedent and Case Reporting in the American ColoniesandtheEarlyPost-independencePeriod 19 2.2 TheAdoptionoftheStrongViewofPrecedentinEnglish andAmericanLaw 22 2.2.1 TowardanAbsoluteViewofPrecedentandBack Again:EnglandintheNineteenthandTwentieth Centuries 22 2.2.2 TheViewofPrecedentintheUSCourts 25 2.3 AreStateCourtsBoundtoUSSupremeCourtDecisions? 30 2.3.1 WhenStateandFederalQuestionsAreMixed 34 2.4 Conclusion 38 vii viii Contents 3 ATheoryofStateHighCourtUsageofUSSupreme CourtPrecedent 39 3.1 Decision-MakingonStateHighCourts 40 3.2 StateHighCourtsandUSSupremeCourtPrecedent 42 3.3 CoreAssumptions 44 3.4 ATheoryofPrecedentUsagebyStateHighCourts 48 3.5 FromFederalPrecedenttoStatePolicy 55 4 Conceptualizing and Measuring How State High Courts Use USSupremeCourtOpinions 57 4.1 Brief History of Compliance Studies in Terms of MeasurementTheory 57 4.2 Newer Research Contributions: The Gift of Shepard’s Citations 60 4.3 Our Measure of State High Court Responses to US SupremeCourtPrecedents 64 4.4 DescriptiveFindingsfromThreeEmpiricalApplications 68 5 StateHighCourtResponsestoAtkinsv.Virginia:Characterized byFlexibility 71 5.1 ABriefHistoryofDeathPenaltyLitigation: Post-Greggv.Georgia 72 5.2 Intellectual Disability and the Eighth Amendment: ControversyandResolution 73 5.3 HowStatesHaveDealtwithAtkins 76 5.4 SupremeCourtPost-Atkins 82 5.5 ApplicationofOurTheorytoAtkins 83 5.6 DataandMethods 86 5.7 ResultsandDiscussion 90 5.8 ConcludingThoughts 93 6 StateHighCourtUsageofLemonv.Kurtzman:Examining aCaseofMaximumDiscretion 96 6.1 ABriefHistoryofEstablishmentClauseJurisprudence 98 6.2 Lemon v. Kurtzman: A (Failed) Attempt at a Universal Standard 100 6.3 HowStatesHaveDealtwithLemon 104 6.4 ApplicationofOurGeneralTheorytoLemon 109 6.5 DataandMethods 113 6.6 ResultsandDiscussion 115 6.7 ConcludingThoughts 118 Contents ix 7 State High Court Usage of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonaldv.CityofChicago:ModerateDegreesofFlexibility 121 7.1 Heller and McDonald: Establishing a Second AmendmentConstitutional“Floor” 122 7.2 ABriefHistoryofSecondAmendmentCaseLaw 123 7.3 HellerandMcDonald:CasesandImmediateAftermath 126 7.4 ResearchDesignandMethod 128 7.4.1 GeneralTrendsinStateCourtResponsestoHeller andMcDonald 128 7.5 CaseStudiesinStateHighCourtReactionstoHellerand McDonald 136 7.5.1 States’CitationsandTreatmentsofHellerPriorto McDonald 138 7.5.2 Massachusetts’TreatmentsofMcDonaldandHeller Post-McDonald 140 7.5.3 Illinois’TreatmentsofHellerandMcDonald 146 7.5.4 The Louisiana Supreme Court’s Discussion of HellerandMcDonald 149 7.6 Conclusion 153 8 ConcludingThoughtsandFutureExtensions 156 8.1 PurposeandGeneralFindingsoftheBook 156 8.2 CaseSelectionConcerns 159 8.2.1 AdditionalNotesonCaseSelection:Aldenv.Maine 160 8.3 SummaryofSpecificFindingsfromOurApplications 161 8.3.1 SummaryofFindingsfromAtkinsChapter 162 8.3.2 SummaryofFindingsfromLemonChapter 163 8.3.3 Summary ofFindings fromSecond Amendment Chapter 164 8.4 ImplicationsofOurBook 165 8.5 FutureWork 166 Bibliography 169 Index 179