The Relative (Un)Importance of Rehnquist Court Decisions

The Rehnquist Court took conservative positions more often than its immediate predecessors. Less clear, however, is the degree to which its decisions actually impacted the legal framework. Given studies that suggest that ideological heterogeneity within Supreme Court majority coalitions and systematic trends of “institutional thickening” hinder the creation of legally important decisions, I hypothesize that the decisions of the Rehnquist Court should be less legally important relative to prior courts, and should create more important liberal legal decisions than expected. Employing measures of legal importance developed through the network analysis of Supreme Court precedent, I find that Rehnquist Court decisions are less legally important than decisions from prior eras. Furthermore, I find that in the most salient legal subject areas, the Rehnquist Court's liberal and conservative decisions are of roughly equal importance. Given these findings, the Rehnquist Court's ideological impact on precedent is more modest than its critics charge.