Files
Abstract
The Supreme Court of the United States often finds itself at the center of political controversies due to the increased judicialization of value and policy matters. These controversies threaten the Court’s authority. This dissertation examines the argument strategies that the Court uses to legitimize its authority when that authority is challenged by having to decide cases that seem to present a partisan valence. Such occurrences are growing more frequent due to the normalization of judicial supremacy and the sensationalized media environment. I scrutinize the application of judicial doctrine across three case studies by performing close readings that are informed by argumentation theory to identify and assess the argument strategies the Court gravitates toward when they discern that a case may threaten their authority. I argue that the Court defends its authority by seeking to articulate its reasoning to dominant judicial doctrines, such as textualism and stare decisis. The dissertation considers three areas of jurisprudence—healthcare policy, voting rights, and religious liberty—wherein the Court’s authority is challenged due to the politically charged nature of the dispute. When widely accepted doctrines can be readily applied, the Court will highlight their reliance on these methods, which are thought to constrain. Other cases are not capable of easy resolution through the application of legal doctrine; in these cases, the Court may employ a strategic maneuver to articulate their ruling to doctrine. In those cases where a strategic maneuver would not appear valid, the Court will seek to dispense with the case on narrow procedural grounds. My analysis contributes to understandings of judicial authority, legal argumentation, and the constraints that attend rhetorical situations stemming from a normalization of judicial supremacy.