Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T03:16:14.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Gregory A. Caldeira  and
John R. Wright
Gregory A. Caldeira
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
John R. Wright
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Participation as amicus curiae has long been an important tactic of organized interests in litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court. We analyze amicus curiae briefs filed before the decision on certiorari and assess their impact on the Court's selection of a plenary docket. We hypothesize that one or more briefs advocating or opposing certiorari increase the likelihood of its being granted. We test this hypothesis using data from the United States Reports and Briefs and Records of the United States Supreme Court for the 1982 term. The statistical analysis demonstrates that the presence of amicus curiae briefs filed prior to the decision on certiorari significantly and positively increases the chances of the justices' binding of a case over for full treatment—even after we take into account the full array of variables other scholars have hypothesized or shown to be substantial influences on the decision to grant or deny.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 82 , Issue 4 , December 1988 , pp. 1109 - 1127
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armstrong, Virginia, and Johnson, Charles A.. 1982. “Certiorari Decision Making by the Warren and Burger Courts: Is Cue Theory Time Bound?” Polity 15: 141–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Stewart. 1984. “A Practical Guide to Certiorari.” Catholic University Law Review 33: 611–32.Google Scholar
Barker, Lucius J. 1967. “Third Parties in Litigation: A Systemic View of the Judicial Function.” Journal of Politics 29: 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence A. 1977. “Policy Goals in Judicial Gate-Keeping: A Proximity Model of Discretionary Jurisdiction.” American Journal of Political Science 21: 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, Arthur. 1908. The Process of Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bradley, Robert, and Gardner, Paul. 1985. “Underdogs, Upperdogs, and the Use of the Amicus Brief: Trends and Explanations.” Justice System Journal 10: 78–96.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul. 1979. “The New Certiorari Game.” Journal of Politics 41: 649–55.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A. 1981. “The United States Supreme Court and Criminal Cases, 1935–1976: Alternative Models of Agenda-Building.” British Journal of Political Science 11: 449–70.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R.. 1988. “Amici Curiae before the Supreme Court: Who Participates, When, and How Much?” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Caplan, Lincoln. 1987. The Tenth Justice. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Ennis, Bruce J. 1984. “Effective Amicus Briefs.” Catholic University Law Review 33: 603–9.Google Scholar
Estreicher, Samuel, and Sexton, John. 1986. Redefining the Supreme Court's Role: A Theory of Managing the Federal Judicial Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Feeney, Floyd. 1975. “Conflicts Involving Federal Law: A Review of Cases Presented to the Supreme Court.” In Structure and Internal Procedures: Recommendations for Change, ed. by Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System. Washington: GPO.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law and Society Review 9: 95–160.Google Scholar
Hakman, Nathan. 1966. “Lobbying the Supreme Court—An Appraisal of Political Science Folklore.” Fordham Law Review 35: 50–75.Google Scholar
Hakman, Nathan. 1969. “The Supreme Court's Political Environment: The Processing of Noncommercial Litigation.” In Frontiers of Judicial Research, ed. Grossman, Joel and Tanenhaus, Joseph. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Ivers, Gregg, and O'Connor, Karen. 1987. “Friends As Foes: The Amicus Curiae Participation and Effectiveness of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Americans for Effective Law Enforcement in Criminal Cases, 1969–1982.” Law and Policy 9: 161–78.Google Scholar
Krislov, Samuel. 1963. “The Amius Curiae Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy.” Yale Law Journal 72: 694–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Likens, Thomas. 1979. “Agenda-Setting by the High Court: A Dynamic Analysis.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington.Google Scholar
Linzer, Peter. 1979. “The Meaning of Certiorari Denials.” Columbia Law Review 79: 1227–1305.Google Scholar
Maddala, G. S. 1983. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manwaring, David. 1962. Render unto Caesar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
New York University Supreme Court Project. 1984a. Summaries of cases granted certiorari during the 1982 term. New York University Law Review 59:823–1003.Google Scholar
New York University Supreme Court Project. 1984b. “Appendices.” New York University Law Review 59: 1403–1929.Google Scholar
O'Brien, David. 1986. Storm Center. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen, and Epstein, Lee. 1982. “Amicus Curiae Participation in the U.S. Supreme Court: An Appraisal of Hakman's Folklore.” Law and Society Review 16: 311–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, Karen, and Epstein, Lee. 1983a. “Court Rules and Workload: A Case Study of Rules Governing Amicus Curiae Participation.” Justice System Journal 8: 35–45.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen, and Epstein, Lee. 1983b. “The Rise of Conservative Interest Group Litigation.” Journal of Politics 45: 479–89.Google Scholar
Olson, Susan. 1981. “The Political Evolution of Interest Group Litigation.” In Governing through Courts, ed. Gambitta, J.. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Palmer, Jan. 1982. “An Econometric Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions.” Public Choice 39: 387–98.Google Scholar
Peltason, Jack W. 1955. Federal Courts in the Political Process. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Perry, H. W. Jr. 1985. “Agenda-Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Perry, H. W. Jr. 1986. “Deciding to Decide in the U.S. Supreme Court: Bargaining, Accommodation and Roses.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington.Google Scholar
Provine, Doris Marie. 1980. Case Selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Puro, Stephen. 1971. “The Role of Amicus Curiae in the United States Supreme Court: 1920–1966.” Ph.D. diss., State University of New York, Buffalo.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1972. “Policy Goals, Strategic Choices, and Majority Opinion Assignments in the U.S. Supreme Court.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 16: 652–82.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Schlozman, Kay L., and Tierney, John T.. 1986. Organized Interests and American Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Scigliano, Robert. 1971. The Supreme Court and the Presidency. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1988. “Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General during the Warren and Burger Courts.” Western Political Quarterly 41: 135–44.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Stephen M. 1984. “Amicus Briefs in the Supreme Court.” Litigation 10.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R. 1979. “Concern for Policy Outputs As a Cue for Supreme Court Decisions on Certiorari.” Journal of Politics 41: 1185–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorauf, Frank J. 1976. The Wall of Separation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert H., Gressman, Eugene, and Shapiro, Stephen M.. 1986. Supreme Court Practice. 6th edition. Washington: Bureau of National Affairs.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Joseph, Schick, Marvin, Muraskin, Matthew, and Rosen, Daniel. 1963. “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Jurisdiction: Cue Theory.” In Judicial Decision-Making, ed. Schubert, Glendon. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Teger, Stuart H., and Kosinski, Douglas. 1980. “The Cue Theory of Supreme Court Certiorari Jurisdiction: A Reconsideration.” Journal of Politics 42: 834–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truman, David B. 1951. The Governmental Process. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1983. “Conflict with Supreme Court Precedents and the Granting of Plenary Review.” Journal of Politics 45: 474–78.Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1984. “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions: Conflict As a Predictive Variable.” American Political Science Review 78: 901–11.Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney, Hintze, William, and Kirklosky, Lois. 1972. “The Decision To Grant or Deny Certiorari: Further Considerations on Cue Theory.” Law and Society Review 7: 637–50.Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney, and Willison, David. 1985. “The Solicitor General of the United States As Amicus Curiae in the U.S. Supreme Court, 1969–1983 Terms.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Vose, Clement E. 1959. Caucasians Only. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Vose, Clement E. 1981. “Interest Groups and Litigation.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York.Google Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1983. “The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America.” American Political Science Review 77: 390–406.Google Scholar