interesting research is being conducted in the sub-Weld on culture (legal and
otherwise), justice (distributive, procedural, retributive, and restorative), and insti-
tutions other than courts (e.g. juries, interest groups), to name just a few. Research
in the sub-Weld is as narrow as studies of opinion-assignment behavior on the
United States Supreme Court and as broad as trying to understand the conditions
under which law can bring about social change. Methodological eclecticism char-
acterizes theWeld, although there is a growing recognition among most scholars that
theory without data is of limited value, just as are data (and databases) without
theory. Although the United States Supreme Court continues to be (and will always
be) the focus of a great deal of research eVort, comparative research on law and
courts is becoming commonplace. And one of the most exciting opportunities can
be found in the reinvigorated research on state law and courts. The states do indeed
provide a laboratory for research of this sort, in particular through their enormous
institutional variability (both in structure and in function).
AndWnally, theoretical innovation in the sub-Weld, though perhaps not keeping
up completely with available data, is impressive. The growth of rational choice is
noteworthy, as is the growing tendency to subject such models to rigorous empir-
ical investigation. Noteworthy as well is the tendency to adopt larger perspectives
on the processes we study, as in research investigating the inXuence of interest
groups on courts, from the interest group, not the court, perspective. All of these
trends and tendencies speak to the vibrancy of theWeld. Law and courts are not
marginal to politics; they are central, and this is increasingly being understood by
the entire discipline of political science.
Nonetheless, important lacunae and unanswered questions exist for the sub-
Weld. Perhaps the most glaring is that research on US courts continues to dominate
the study of courts. With the exception of studies of judicial legitimacy—where
research on a couple of dozen national high courts has been reported, as well
research on the European Court of Justice—little is known about non-US courts.
Fortunately, scholars have recognized this and a variety of new research is currently
being conducted on courts throughout the world (e.g. Haynie 2003 ). Perhaps the
next time a review such as this is written, it will be clear that the study of courts is a
truly international enterprise.
References
Baird,V.A. 2001. Building institutional legitimacy: the role of procedural justice.Political
Research Quarterly, 54 ( 2 ): 333 – 54.
Baum,L. 1988 – 89. Voters’ information in judicial contests: the 1986 contests for the Ohio
Supreme Court.Kentucky Law Journal, 77 : 645 – 70.
—— 2003. Judicial elections and judicial independence: the voter’s perspective.Ohio State
Law Journal, 64 : 13 – 41.
judicial institutions 531