Newswise — It’s now June, the month when some of the most controversial and impactful decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are traditionally handed down. This year, Americans await decisions in cases involving immigration, affirmative action and abortion, among others.
But with a 4-4 court, the results of these cases – with split decisions putting the issues in legal limbo – could impact the battle between the Democratic and Republican parties to control the U.S. Senate, a political scientist said.
Amy Steigerwalt, an associate professor of political science at Georgia State University, said the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, and the refusal of U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to allow confirmation hearings for nominee Merrick Garland, presents the possibility of a vacancy lasting well into 2017.
Steigerwalt is available for interviews, and her contact information is in the contact box above, visible to logged-in reporters registered with the Newswise system.
She researches the federal judicial selection process, and is the author of Battle Over the Bench: Senators, Interest Groups and the Politics of Courts of Appeals Confirmations (2010, University of Virginia Press).
She has also co-authored research examining the confirmation process of Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
The stalled confirmation process presents a political problem for some Senatorial candidates in tight races, Steigerwalt said.
“While Garland’s nomination is unlikely to influence the presidential race, it may have some very real implications for the struggle over control over the Senate,” she explained. “Of the Senate races that are competitive this season, the vast majority of the seats are controlled by Republicans.
“That’s why Senators such as Susan Collins of Maine very quickly broke party ranks and voiced support for confirming Garland,” she continued. “The Supreme Court splitting 4-4 could therefore also put even more pressure on vulnerable Republicans facing reelection in November.”
Steigerwalt noted three main issues caused by 4-4 splits:
• A split vote means that the high court was unable to come to a decision, so the lower court decision is unreviewed – it was as if the Supreme Court never considered the case at all.
• If the Supreme Court was hearing a case because multiple lower courts reached differing conclusions on the same legal question, this legal confusion remains. The result is that the “law of the land” can be one thing in California (part of the 9th Circuit), another in Georgia (part of the 11th Circuit), and even another in Massachusetts (part of the 1st Circuit).
• Since the dispute hasn’t been resolved, other appellate courts could rule differently, and the parties would have the option to appeal the case in question, or a similar one, to the Supreme Court again – making it multiple years before a final resolution is reached.
Because the Supreme Court is coming to decisions, and may continue to make decisions, that essentially throw cases back to appellate courts, the wrangling in the Senate makes appellate courts much more important.
“And those judges have to be confirmed by the Senate as well,” Steigerwalt said.
She noted that since 2015, only 18 judges have been confirmed to the lower courts. Among the lower federal courts, 90 seats are sitting empty – some from as far back as 2011.
“Comparatively, 68 were confirmed during George W. Bush’s last two years, and 73 during Clinton’s,” Steigerwalt said. “Thus, the confirmation impotence extends to the lower courts as well, and it’s unlikely that many of these vacancies will be filled before 2017.”
“The next president may very well get to recast the federal judiciary -- assuming the Senate confirmation process is allowed to begin again,” she said.
For more information about Steigerwalt, visit http://politicalscience.gsu.edu/profile/amy-steigerwalt-2/.
RSS