This study explores the capacity of several different theoretical perspectives to account for variation in U.S. Supreme Court fourth amendment decisions (whether the case outcome favored the Government or the individual). The study developed measures of Richardson and Vines and Crow and Gertz commentary on legal subculture and democratic subculture concerns of the judiciary as well as negotiation/synthesis of these concerns. The study also developed and tested measures of the resource capability thesis of Galanter and the recent work of George applying social background theory to the behavior of U.S. Supreme Court justices. The findings reveal support for each of these theoretical perspectives. Implications are discussed. (Published Abstract)