Skip to main content
Scalia in the Casebooks
University of Chicago Law Review
  • Brian T. Fitzpatrick
  • Paulson K. Varghese
Document Type
Publication Date
  • constitutional law,
  • casebooks,
  • empirical studies,
  • Scalia,
  • Alito,
  • casebooks,
  • seniority

In the time since Justice Antonin Scalia’s untimely death, much has been written about what his influence has been and what his influence will be. In this Essay, we try to quantify Scalia’s influence in law school constitutional-law curricula by studying how often his ideas are explored in constitutional-law casebooks. In particular, relative to other justices, we look at how often Scalia’s opinions (for the Court, or his separate opinions) are excerpted in the principal cases and how often he is referred to by name in the notes preceding and following the principal cases. We find that Scalia is at or near the top of most of the metrics we explore here, but he does not tower over the competition. Indeed, the data reveal that perhaps the most important factor driving inclusion in our casebooks is seniority: chief justices and justices who led their ideological wings of the Court have a great deal of power to assign themselves opinions that are likely to end up in our casebooks. We find that the most notable exception in the data is not Scalia, but Justice Samuel Alito: he is included in our casebooks to an especially surprising extent given that, until this year, he has always been the most junior member of his wing of the Court.

Citation Information
Brian T. Fitzpatrick and Paulson K. Varghese. "Scalia in the Casebooks" University of Chicago Law Review Vol. 84 (2017) p. 2231
Available at: