Replication data for: The Nature of Legal Change on the U.S. Supreme Court: Jurisprudential Regimes Theory and Its Alternatives

Jurisprudential regimes theory (JRT) posits that legal change on the U.S. Supreme Court occurs in a drastic, structural-break-like manner. Methodological debates present conflicting evidence for JRT, which has implications for the important law versus ideology debate. We confront this debate by first elaborating two alternative theoretical perspectives to JRT -- evolutionary change and legal stability. Our analytical framework focuses on two key substantive effects of jurisprudential categories on the Court's case outcomes -- relative differences between categories over multiple time periods and longitudinal differences across time periods. Importantly, different pieces of empirical evidence can provide support for different dynamic processes. The extent to which law matters is not necessarily tied to one particular model of legal change. Empirical analysis of updated and backdated free expression data generates key findings consistent with JRT, legal stability, and evolutionary change. We discuss the implications of the results for understanding legal change and legal influence.

法理学范式理论（Jurisprudential regimes theory, JRT）提出，美国最高法院的法律变迁呈现出剧烈的类结构突变式特征。针对JRT的方法论争议催生了相互矛盾的经验证据，这一议题对学界核心的法律与意识形态之争具有重要启示。为回应这场学术争议，本文首先阐释了JRT的两种替代性理论视角：进化论式法律变迁与法律稳定性。本文的分析框架聚焦于法理学范畴对最高法院案件裁决结果的两类核心实质影响：多时段下不同范畴间的相对差异，以及跨时段的纵向差异。值得注意的是，不同的经验证据可分别为不同的法律动态变迁过程提供支撑。法律的实际影响力大小，未必与某一种特定的法律变迁模式绑定。对经更新与回溯处理的言论自由数据集开展的经验分析，得到了同时契合JRT、法律稳定性与进化论式法律变迁的关键结论。本文最后讨论了上述结论对理解法律变迁与法律影响力的启示意义。