Doctoral Dissertations

Date of Award

8-1998

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy

Major

Political Science

Major Professor

John Scheb

Committee Members

Will Lyons, Grady Bogue, Otis H. Stephens Jr.

Abstract

Each year the U.S. Supreme Court is deluged with thousands of requests to accept cases. In each instance, the Justices must make two crucial preliminary decisions. The first is whether to take the case or not. If the answer is yes, the Justices must then decide how they will dispose of the case. They may choose to either give the case plenary or summary treatment. Plenary treatment means that the Court will accept briefs on the merits of the case and will accord the case oral argument. Summary dispositions, on the other hand, lack both briefing on the merits and oral argument. Students of the Supreme Court have typically given very little treatment to summary dispositions. This type of adjudication has been viewed as a technical, perfunctory process of little scholarly significance.

This research sought to demonstrate that summary dispositions are, in fact, significant, often controversial decisions which adjudge policy case of tremendous import. To facilitate this inquiry, a context analysis of one type of summary disposition, the per curiam summary disposition, was used. Specifically, thirteen terms of the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist eras were analyzed. Through exploration of the form, function, issues, and relevant opinions in each of the cases, this dissertation will unveil the true function of per curiam dispositions.

This dissertation concludes that per curiam summary dispositions, do serve significant policy roles. This type of adjudication has been used over time to remedy injustices to individuals, reprimand recalcitrant lower courts, facilitate pro-prosecutorial objectives, and create or clarify policy in a variety of areas. Some of these policy areas include criminal procedure, civil rights, civil liberties, administrative law, and access to the Supreme Court. Moreover, the percuriam summary disposition is hardly a noncontroversial type of judgement. The Justices have rendered vociferous dissents in a majority of the cases since the Burger years. Certainly more scholarship is needed to fully explore summary dispositions. They have been called a "dark comer of Supreme Court Practice" (Hellman 1984:389). Hopefully, this investigation of per curiam summary dispositions has begun the illumination.

Download
Files over 3MB may be slow to open. For best results, right-click and select "save as..."

Share

COinS