DOI: 10.5064/f6w7qrsx
title: Replication Data for: Inconsistency and Indecision in the United States Supreme Court

description: &lt;h3&gt;Data Overview&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All data and documents contained in this entry were collected for a project that sought to measure and understand a particular phenomenon of decision-making on collegial courts, with a focus on the United States Supreme Court. What happens when a high court, composed of several justices or judges, issues a ruling on the merits without also issuing a clear precedent for lower courts to follow? Why does this happen? How frequently does it happen? What are the consequences of this phenomenon for American law and society? This inquiry led to two publications:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;Hitt, Matthew P. 2019. &lt;em&gt;Inconsistency and Indecision in the United States Supreme Court&lt;/em&gt;. Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan Press. &lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Hitt, Matthew P. 2016. “Measuring Precedent in a Judicial Hierarchy.” &lt;em&gt;Law & Society Review&lt;/em&gt; 50(1): 57-81.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The main argument advanced in these works is: The Supreme Court historically emphasized the goal of dispute resolution, evolving into a Court that now prioritizes an alternative goal of logically consistent legal doctrine. As a result, the Court today fails to resolve more underlying questions in law and society, in part in order to minimize criticism of its output from other elites. In so doing, the modern Court often fails to live up to its Constitutional obligation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;Data Organization&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are two main forms of data available in this entry.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;Archival materials of the justices’ deliberations in cases that resulted in unreasoned judgments in the modern era. These materials are organized by case and justice. Materials were collected from the various justices’ papers, archived at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. Materials include draft opinions with marginalia, formal memos between justices, informal, private memos between justices and clerks, and letters from justices to external third parties. These materials can be used to replicate the analysis found in the 2019 book, in particular the theory expounded in Chapter 1. Files explicitly featured in the book include their respective chapter number in the filename and are stored in a separate ‘Book’ folder; supplemental files include ‘Sup’ in the filename and are stored in separate folders organized by case names.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Quantitative datasets and code in Stata 15.0 format to replicate the statistical analyses found in the 2019, organized by chapter. The details of these statistical analyses are found in the Technical Appendix B in the 2019 book.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;
description: Papers of the justices of the US Supreme Court a the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Papers from the following collections are included:

Harry A. Blackmun papers: https://lccn.loc.gov/mm99084430
William J. Brennan papers: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms002010
Harold H. Burton papers: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms002012
William O. Douglas papers: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms002011
Robert H. Jackson papers: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms003002
Thurgood Marshall papers: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms001047
Earl Warren papers: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms000012
Byron R. White papers: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms003003

Only materials created by the justices or by employees of the federal government of the United States are included in this data project.