High Court Review 2002: The Least Dangerous Branch

The article provides a general political review of recent High Court decisions and explores the extent to which the judiciary can be said to be the 'least dangerous branch'. By examining recent events such as the 'Kirby incident', as well as the important judgments handed down by the High Court concerning Native Title, IVF and the Web, it seeks to delineate the influence and changing role of the High Court in Australian politics and constitutionalism. This is the Australian Journal of Political Science 's second annual review of the Australian High Court from a political-science perspective.     

High Court review 2003: the centenary year

2003 marked the Centenary year of the High Court, an anniversary which provides an opportunity to revisit debates about its role in the Australian system of government. The first section of this article canvasses debates around this question, culminating in a consideration of the High Court's ‘new politics’. This sets the framework for an examination of events in 2003 from the perspective of the interaction between the judicial and other branches of government, in particular the executive. The article analyses the implications of executive interventions in relation to the judiciary, as well as important cases brought before the High Court. It argues that conflict between the executive and judicial branches is only likely to increase where contradictions of purpose arise between international legal norms and obligations, the rule of law and domestic policy objectives. This article is the third in a series of reviews of the High Court from a political‐science perspective published in the Australian Journal of Political Science.     

The role of attitudinal,institutional and environmental factors in explaining variations in the dissent rate on the High Court of Australia

This paper examines the role of attitudinal, institutional and environmental factors in explaining the dissent rate on the High Court of Australia (hereafter High Court) using data for the period 1904–2001. The paper's main conclusion is that the majority of attitudinal and institutional factors tested are important predictors of variation in the dissent rate while the urbanisation rate, which is used to measure socio-political complexity, has no statistically significant effect on the High Court's dissent rate.     

High Court Review 2006: Australian Federalism—Implications of the WorkChoices Decision

This year's High Court Review focuses exclusively on the WorkChoices decision, in which the federal government's new industrial relations regime was upheld by the High Court as within the Commonwealth's powers under s. 51(xx) of the Constitution, the corporations power. The implications of the judgement are potentially momentous for Australian federalism. Thus, we begin with an overview of changes in Australian federalism over time, including its fortunes in the High Court of Australia. We then consider the WorkChoices decision itself, outlining the most important aspects of the decision. We argue that the decision is the most important High Court decision on the constitutional division of federal powers since 1983, especially in the context of the corporatisation of policy delivery in the past few decades. Moreover, it reinforces the dominance of an orthodoxy in constitutional interpretation, thus confirming the demise of ‘activist’ tendencies. Finally, the judgement demonstrates the Court's preparedness to confirm changes to the workings of Australian federalism that, the evidence suggests strongly, would not pass at referendum. However, this view of the centralist implications of the decision is mediated by a consideration of the workings of intergovernmental relations. An examination of the potential changes in this area reveals a more complicated outcome, one with important implications for the manner in which intergovernmental negotiations might be conducted in future.     

Rewriting Australian Liberalism: The High Court's Jurisprudence of Rights

The High Court's recent rights jurisprudence has been unusually controversial. This paper argues that it is possible to evaluate the important developments in the Court's jurisprudence by examining the philosophical foundations of its understanding of rights. Relying on the distinction between utilitarian rights and natural and human rights, the paper discerns in the Court's traditional legalism as well as its more recent jurisprudence of implied rights a consistent commitment to a utilitarian conception of rights. In contrast, the paper argues that the Court's human rights jurisprudence represents a fundamental shift in its view of rights and judicial review, with far-reaching consequences for Australian constitutionalism and liberalism.     

High Court Review 2004: Limits on the Judicial Protection of Rights

The High Court's role of judicial review has often been examined for its impact on rights protection, an area of particular interest in Australia due to the historical lack of an explicit bill of rights in either statutory or constitutional form. In 2004 rights issues were presented in particularly stark relief in several key cases, demonstrating the difficulties of the role of judicial review in the Australian constitutional framework. The cases analysed here produce compelling evidence of the limitations of relying on judicial review for rights protection within the Australian system of government. They demonstrate that in the absence of a clearer framework for the protection of rights the judiciary can uphold unambiguous decisions of the legislature enshrined in statute, even where and when those provisions are considered to override the rule of law, international standards and human rights principles.     

High Court Review 2007–08: A Changing Bench,But Business as Usual?

This year's High Court Review analyses the major developments in the Court's composition and jurisprudence for the two-year period from 2007 to 2008, with a primary focus on the Court's role as chief interpreter of the Commonwealth Constitution, the political implications of the Court's vision of the federal compact and its interpretation of the concept of representative democracy in Australia. As an inherently political institution with considerable policy influence, the first part of the Review analyses the changing composition of the bench with reference to two new appointments made in 2008. The second half of the Review turns to developments in the Court's constitutional jurisprudence. The Court's role as an arbiter of federal-State relations is explored through two important section 51 decisions concerning the scope of the Commonwealth government's legislative power: Attorney-General (Vic) v Andrews and Thomas v Mowbray. Finally, the Review analyses the Court's construction of the Constitution as providing for a system of representative government in two cases concerning voting rights: Bennett v The Commonwealth and Roach v Electoral Commissioner.     

Separation of Powers in Australia

This article argues that the nature and character of separation of powers in Australia has been fundamentally shaped and defined by the High Court, which chose a Blackstonian, common law conception of separation of judicial powers in preference to the principles elaborated in The Federalist and articulated in the American Constitution. But the Court's recent jurisprudence, including its admission that it makes the law, has presented unprecedented theoretical and political challenges to the concept of separation of judicial power in Australia, including a transformation in the role of the attorneygeneral, the creation of new institutions and a move towards an American conception of checks and balances. Thus this article suggests that the Court continues to exercise a profound influence on the formulation of separation of powers in Australia.     

A Look Back at the Dred Scott Decision

Thank you for inviting me to deliver the 2009 Annual Lecture of the Supreme Court Historical Society. I am a great admirer of the Society's commitment to preserving the history of the Supreme Court and to increasing the public's awareness of the Court's contributions to our nation's history.     

JURY DECISION MAKING MODELS AND THE SUPREME COURT: THE JURY CASES FROM WILLIAMS v. FLORIDA TO BALLEW v. GEORGIA*

This article analyzes recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in cases relating to the size and unanimity of juries as an example of the use (and abuse) of social science by the Court in the realm of policy analysis. The four cases reviewed “cast an unflattering light on the U.S. Supreme Court's ability to integrate social science findings into public law.”     

Historical Consensual Norms in the High Court

There is a substantial political-science literature that discusses the notion of consensual norms in the US Supreme Court. Most of this literature assumes that consensual norms exist, rather than proving their existence. Caldeira and Zorn ( American Journal of Political Science 42: 874-902, 1998) use the method of cointegration developed in econometric time-series analysis to prove the existence of a single consensual norm in the US Supreme Court. This study applies cointegration analysis to historical time-series data on dissenting and single judgments to examine whether there is a single consensual norm in the High Court of Australia. The study finds that a single consensual norm does not underlie decision making in the High Court. This result is explained on the basis that the institutions underpinning decision making and the approach to decision making are different between the Australian High Court and the US Supreme Court.     

The High Court of Australia and political science: A revised historiography and new research agenda

The judiciary has not been the subject of sustained scrutiny within the political science discipline. The High Court plays a central role in the Australian political system, however, and the exercise of judicial power has far reaching consequences for the legislative and executive branches of government. This article presents a historiography of the study of the High Court by political scientists, using Helen Irving's ‘The Constitution and the judiciary’ as a foil. In order to foster cross-disciplinary study and research within the political science discipline, this article concludes by setting out a new research agenda for the future study of the High Court and the law by political scientists. This research agenda provides new insights into (among other topics) how judges exercise power and the changing relationship between the judiciary and the legislative and executive branches.

在政治学里,司法并不一直是审视的对象。不过,高等法院在澳大利亚的政治体系内扮演了关键的角色,司法权力对于立法和行政部门有着深远的影响。本文将政治学者对高等法院的研究做了历史的梳理,采用了海伦厄万的“宪法和司法”理论为参照。本文为将来政治学者研究高等法院及法律提出了新的研究课题,希望以此促进跨学科以及政治学科的研究。这些课题探讨法官如何行使权力,探讨司法与立法以及行政部门之间变动不居的关系。     

The Supreme Court and Juvenile Justice

For so many things I thank the Historical Society profoundly, but place right at the top of my list the delightful opportunity your invitation has given me to read the prior Annual Lectures—interesting, exciting, thoroughly intimidating—touching on the Court's history, its cases, its people, even its wives (the subject of Justice Ginsburg's 1999 lecture). Wholly apart from the Society's many initiatives to preserve the Court's history and increase public awareness of its contributions to our nation, the now nearly three dozen Annual Lectures alone offer an amazing insight into this great institution.     

Court politics in a federal polity

This article uses a case study from Queensland to demonstrate the court politics approach's potential to reinvigorate executive studies. Court politics focuses on webs of interdependence within the core executive. It examines the beliefs and practices of elite actors and their fluid and contingent relationships. This article examines the patterns of executive politics that prevailed under Premier Anna Bligh. It seeks to answer three key questions. First, why is court politics a useful approach to studying the Australian core executive? Second, what is the nature and extent of court politics in Australian state governments? Finally, recognising that local traditions shape the beliefs and practices of political elites, how does the court politics approach need to be modified for application in Australia?     

Many Voices,One Court: The Origin and Role of Dissent in the Supreme Court

E pluribus unum—out of many, one—is the phrase emblazoned on the Seal of the United States, which refers to the notion that a single American voice emerges from the many diverse groups that constitute the nation. The legislative and executive branches of government often act as one voice through legislative bills and executive acts, aggregating diverse interests that reflect the national will. The notion of e pluribus unum, however, is not often applied to the judiciary, a branch of government the members of which are viewed, not as outlets for the will of the people, but as gatekeepers of the rule of law. But while the Supreme Court may not speak directly for the people, its opinions speak to the people, and the methods used by the Justices to express those opinions have revealed changes in the conception of the Court's voice throughout history.     

Herbert Brownell,Jr.: The “Hidden Hand”1 in the Selection of Earl Warren and the Government's Role in Brown v. Board of Education

There are, of course, many heroes behind the Supreme Court's most famous and, some would argue, most significant case of the 20^th Century: Brown v. Board of Education. ² Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the decision and is credited with convincing the other Justices to make it unanimous. Thurgood Marshall and Robert L. Carter argued important aspects of the case for the NAACP and championed a legal strategy that brought it to the High Court. Few, however, would readily name Herbert Brownell, Jr. as one of the heroes. Yet, as Attorney General, Brownell was President Eisenhower's chief adviser on judicial appointments when he put Warren on the Court, and Brownell led the Justice Department in supporting the notion that segregation of public schools violated the Constitution.     

Cooper v. Aaron (1958): A Hidden Story of Unanimity and Division

Contemporary and later commentators emphasized the Supreme Court's forceful affirmation of its own authority in Cooper v. Aaron (1958). The case was the Court's first significant test of states' rights opposition denying that Brown v. Board of Education (1954) (Brown I) and the Brown II (1955) decree permitting gradual implementation were legitimate constitutional law. Indeed, following the Court's announcement of Cooper v. Aaron in September 1958, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus and his followers closed the very same Little Rock schools the Supreme Court had ordered desegregated. Black students' rights did not prevail until summer 1959. In Arkansas and elsewhere, defiance initially triumphed over the Supreme Court's self‐assertive power. ¹     

The Judicial Bookshelf

Change at the Supreme Court may be most visible and frequent in the progression of statutory and constitutional questions the Justices resolve collectively, but it may also be equally highlighted by an individual Justice's decision. This reality became plainly apparent in a letter that Justice John Paul Stevens sent to the White House on April 9, 2010, just eleven days shy of his 90^th birthday: “My dear Mr. President: Having concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Court to have my successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the commencement of the Court's next Term, I shall retire from regular active service as an Associate Justice … effective the next day after the Court rises for the summer recess this year.” ¹ His statement was dated almost a year after Justice David Souter dispatched a similar notice to President Obama on May 1, 2009, announcing his intention to leave the Bench. Thus, for the fifth time in as many years, the machinery of executive nomination and senatorial advice and consent for the High Court churned again.     

The Prestige of Australian State Supreme Courts Over the 20th Century

This article measures the prestige of the Australian State supreme courts and examines competing explanations for differentials in their prestige over the course of the 20th century. The study finds that the prestige of the State supreme courts are positively correlated with the reputation of their Bench, proxied by the number of High Court judges from that State; socioeconomic diversity in that State, proxied by the State's population; and legal capital, proxied by the number of pages of the official law reports of the State supreme court.     

High Court Review 2010: The Resurgence of Rights?

In 2010 the High Court delivered several judgments with potentially significant implications for the protection of human rights in Australia. It invoked the doctrine of the implied constitutional freedom of communication in Aid/Watch; found that offshore processing of asylum seekers must comply with procedural fairness and natural justice; invalidated elements of the SA government's control order scheme as it encroached on the independence of the judiciary; and invalidated amendments to electoral laws that shortened the period for enrolment. In this review we evaluate the implications of these decisions in the wider context of the protection of human rights in Australia. We argue that while these decisions have made an important contribution to restating the boundaries of rights protection, there are significant limitations in relying on judicial review as a mechanism of rights protection within the Australian constitutional framework.