{"title":"A Model of Judicial Influence on Congressional Policy Making: Grove City College v. Bell","authors":"Brian A. Marks","doi":"10.1093/JLEO/EWS010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Traditional law and economic analysis has focused on legal rules directly related to the allocation of resources. Today, economic analysis is being used to examine more traditional legal issues. This article explores one such traditional legal issue by applying economic methodology to the legislative-judicial interaction or \"bargaining game.\" The purpose of this article is to determine the impact of judicial interpretation on regulatory legislation. Most studies of the political economy of regulation have focused on elected politicians (e.g., Congressmen), ignoring the role of the courts. Yet, judges interpret the law and may, in the extreme, reverse legislative decisions. Studying the influence of the judiciary on the legislature’s regulatory decisions remains an unexplored but important issue. The model allows us to address a variety of issues central to national policy making, for example, how the court influences legislative choices. We focus on an issue raised in the legal literature and in judicial opinions. Suppose a regulatory statute has been altered or reinterpreted by the courts, and we then observe that Congress does not act to change the court ruling. What can we infer from this lack of action? Many prominent political and legal scholars conclude that this inaction indicates acceptability by a majority of legislators. Because there exists no analytical foundation for assessing how judicial decisions affect legislative decision making over regulatory issues, however, such conclusions rest on questionable assumptions. The purpose of this article is to develop a formal economic model of legislative-judicial interaction. The model allows us to predict the circumstances in which Congress will and will not change judicial decisions. The model shows that congressional inaction is not a sign of acceptability by a majority of legislators. Instead, congressional inaction is a consequence of congressional structure and procedures: committees play an important role here, as does bicameralism. This model will be used to explore and explain the legislative events surrounding the Supreme Court decision Grove City College v. Bell (1984), a case involving statutory interpretation and the Department of Education’s regulatory provisions prohibiting sex discrimination. (JEL D72, D78, K00, K40, Z18)","PeriodicalId":47987,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Economics & Organization","volume":"16 1","pages":"843-875"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"25","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law Economics & Organization","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JLEO/EWS010","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25
Abstract
Traditional law and economic analysis has focused on legal rules directly related to the allocation of resources. Today, economic analysis is being used to examine more traditional legal issues. This article explores one such traditional legal issue by applying economic methodology to the legislative-judicial interaction or "bargaining game." The purpose of this article is to determine the impact of judicial interpretation on regulatory legislation. Most studies of the political economy of regulation have focused on elected politicians (e.g., Congressmen), ignoring the role of the courts. Yet, judges interpret the law and may, in the extreme, reverse legislative decisions. Studying the influence of the judiciary on the legislature’s regulatory decisions remains an unexplored but important issue. The model allows us to address a variety of issues central to national policy making, for example, how the court influences legislative choices. We focus on an issue raised in the legal literature and in judicial opinions. Suppose a regulatory statute has been altered or reinterpreted by the courts, and we then observe that Congress does not act to change the court ruling. What can we infer from this lack of action? Many prominent political and legal scholars conclude that this inaction indicates acceptability by a majority of legislators. Because there exists no analytical foundation for assessing how judicial decisions affect legislative decision making over regulatory issues, however, such conclusions rest on questionable assumptions. The purpose of this article is to develop a formal economic model of legislative-judicial interaction. The model allows us to predict the circumstances in which Congress will and will not change judicial decisions. The model shows that congressional inaction is not a sign of acceptability by a majority of legislators. Instead, congressional inaction is a consequence of congressional structure and procedures: committees play an important role here, as does bicameralism. This model will be used to explore and explain the legislative events surrounding the Supreme Court decision Grove City College v. Bell (1984), a case involving statutory interpretation and the Department of Education’s regulatory provisions prohibiting sex discrimination. (JEL D72, D78, K00, K40, Z18)
传统的法律和经济分析侧重于与资源配置直接相关的法律规则。今天,经济分析被用来研究更传统的法律问题。本文通过运用经济学方法研究立法-司法互动或“议价博弈”,探讨了这样一个传统的法律问题。本文的目的是确定司法解释对监管立法的影响。大多数关于监管政治经济学的研究都集中在民选政治家(如国会议员)身上,而忽视了法院的作用。然而,法官解释法律,并可能在极端情况下推翻立法决定。研究司法机构对立法机构监管决定的影响仍然是一个尚未探索但重要的问题。该模型使我们能够解决国家政策制定的各种核心问题,例如,法院如何影响立法选择。我们关注的是法律文献和司法意见中提出的一个问题。假设监管法规被法院修改或重新解释,然后我们观察到国会没有采取行动改变法院的裁决。从这种缺乏行动中我们可以推断出什么?许多著名的政治和法律学者得出结论,这种不作为表明大多数立法者可以接受。然而,由于没有分析基础来评估司法决定如何影响对监管问题的立法决策,因此这些结论建立在可疑的假设之上。本文的目的是建立一个正式的立法-司法互动的经济模型。该模型使我们能够预测国会将会或不会改变司法决定的情况。该模型表明,国会不作为并不是大多数立法者可以接受的标志。相反,国会的不作为是国会结构和程序的结果:委员会在这里发挥着重要作用,两院制也是如此。该模型将用于探讨和解释围绕最高法院判决Grove City College v. Bell(1984)的立法事件,该案件涉及法律解释和教育部禁止性别歧视的监管规定。(凝胶d72, d78, k00, k40, z18)