{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0112, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.3232323232323235, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Toward and Beyond a Theory of Supreme Court Impact

It is often presumed that the hierarchical organization of the American judiciary centralizes much lawmaking authority within appellate courts and that trial courts generally defer to the Supreme Court in deciding cases of constitutional law. The operation of this role constraint on lower courts is illustrated by the Indiana Supreme Court’s reaction to Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer, which was involved in a local obscenity case. After expressing distaste for the book, the Indiana Court deferred to the authority of the superordinate court and reversed the conviction: