Impact in the United States

Direct and indirect effects of appellate court decisions. Impact reflects the extent to which behaviors are changed as a consequence of a court decision. The impact of a decision is dependent on first achieving some degree of compliance. The most direct kind of impact a decision can have is when actual behaviors are modified. For example, utilization of the Exclusionary Rule (Judicial Effects and Policies) discourages unreasonable searches by law enforcement authorities because improperly obtained evidence cannot be used at a criminal trial. At the same time, strict adherence to the Exclusionary Rule (Judicial Effects and Policies) may negatively affect the prospects of successfully prosecuting some defendants because it precludes the use of reliable evidence. Court decisions may also have less direct impacts. Some decisions may influence attitudes and reinforce pressure for social change. Decisions that support challenges to gender-based discrimination have contributed to the decrease of some stereotyping about women, especially in the workplace.

See Also

Compliance (Judicial Effects and Policies) Implementation (Judicial Effects and Policies).

Analysis and Relevance

The impact of an appellate decision is produced in part by its policy content. Appellate courts are expected to rule on questions of law. This is an activity that necessarily involves establishment of norms and standards. The impact of such judgments is often substantial. There can be no doubt, for example, that Supreme Court decisions since 1960 have extensively changed the character of the criminal justice process. This has been particularly true in the wake of the extention of most federal constitutional safeguards to state criminal courts. Similarly, the Supreme Court’s decision in Baker v. Carr (369 U.S. 186: 1962) ultimately led to adoption of the one person-one vote principle for legislative districting. The redistricting prompted by Baker and subsequent decisions dramatically altered the composition of state legislative bodies, local legislatures, and the U.S. House of Representatives. The impact of court decisions varies. While the impact of decisions in certain policy areas might be extensive, there are conditions that tend to limit decision impact. Areas of doctrine such as those applying to the rights of the accused are often composed of many decisions, not all of which are entirely compatible. Thus, some decisions tend to impinge on others. Under Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436: 1966), police are obligated to provide certain warnings to persons prior to initiating custodial interrogation. At the same time, statements by a suspect made in the absence of Miranda warnings can be used during cross-examination if the person testifies in his or her own defense. Second, policies also come from other branches of government. To the extent policy decisions are not coincidental, the impact of judicial decisions may be reduced. Such muting of decision impact can occur if assistance in implementation is not forthcoming from the other governmental branches or their agencies. Finally, court decisions are only one of a number of influences on social attitudes. While court decisions may not permit employment discrimination, for example, practices by employers may be slow to change.

Notes and References

1. Definition of Impact from the American Law Dictionary, 1991, California