Assessing the Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Roberts Court

Objectives Our objective is to assess the influence of amicus curiae briefs on judicial behavior on the U.S. Supreme Court. Our primary hypothesis is that amicus briefs have an impact on the justices across the ideological spectrum. Our secondary hypothesis is that this influence will be greater for justices nearer the ideological center. Methods Our analysis is confined to the Roberts Court (2005 through 2014 terms, inclusive). The unit of analysis is the justice‐vote in each of the 793 full‐opinion decisions during this 10‐term period; thus, our data set contains 7,135 observations. We employ logistic regression to test the impact of amicus filings on the ideological direction of the vote cast by each justice in each case. We control for the direction of the lower court decision, the ideological orientations of the justices, the presence of the federal government (or agency or official) as party, and the presence of the solicitor general as amicus curiae. Results We find statistical support for both the primary and secondary hypotheses. Amicus briefs appear to influence the justices across the ideological spectrum. The influence is somewhat greater among the more moderate justices, although the relationship between amicus influence and judicial moderation is a weak one. Conclusions Supreme Court justices appear to respond positively to the persuasive attempts of amici. This impact is most noticeable for the justices in the middle of the Court—those who tend to be most influential in steering the Court's decision making.

[1]  Paul M. Collins,et al.  The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Content , 2015 .

[2]  Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier,et al.  The evolution and formation of amicus curiae networks , 2014, Soc. Networks.

[3]  Dino P. Christenson,et al.  Quality Over Quantity: Amici Influence and Judicial Decision Making , 2013, American Political Science Review.

[4]  Ryan C. Black,et al.  US Supreme Court Agenda Setting and the Role of Litigant Status , 2012 .

[5]  Ryan C. Black,et al.  The Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court: Index , 2012 .

[6]  Ryan C. Black,et al.  Solicitor General Influence and Agenda Setting on the U.S. Supreme Court , 2011 .

[7]  Patrick C. Wohlfarth,et al.  How Public Opinion Constrains the U.S. Supreme Court , 2011 .

[8]  Margaret Meriwether Cordray,et al.  The Solicitor General's Changing Role in Supreme Court Litigation , 2010 .

[9]  Patrick C. Wohlfarth.  The Tenth Justice? Consequences of Politicization in the Solicitor General's Office , 2009, The Journal of Politics.

[10]  P. Collins,et al.  Interest Group Participation, Competition, and Conflict in the U.S. Supreme Court , 2007, Law & Social Inquiry.

[11]  L. S. Simard.  An Empirical Study of Amici Curiae in Federal Court: A Fine Balance of Access, Efficiency, and Adversarialism , 2007 .

[12]  Paul M. Collins,et al.  Lobbyists before the U.S. Supreme Court , 2007 .

[13]  Thomas Brambor,et al.  Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses , 2006, Political Analysis.

[14]  Ange-Marie Hancock,et al.  U.S. Supreme Court Decision Making, Case Salience, and the Attitudinal Model , 2006 .

[15]  Richard L. Pacelle.  Amicus Curiae or Amicus Praesidentis?* Reexamining the Role of the Solicitor General in Filing Amici , 2006 .

[16]  Michael A. Bailey,et al.  Signals from the Tenth Justice: The Political Role of the Solicitor General in Supreme Court Decision Making , 2005 .

[17]  P. Collins.  Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation , 2004 .

[18]  Thomas G. Hansford.  Information Provision, Organizational Constraints, and the Decision to Submit an Amicus Curiae Brief in a U.S. Supreme Court Case , 2004 .

[19]  Mark S. Hurwitz,et al.  Acclimation and Attitudes: “Newcomer” Justices and Precedent Conformance on the Supreme Court , 2004 .

[20]  Thomas G. Hansford.  Lobbying Strategies, Venue Selection, and Organized Interest Involvement at the U.S. Supreme Court , 2004 .

[21]  Andrew D. Martin,et al.  The Median Justice on the United States Supreme Court , 2004 .

[22]  James Meernik,et al.  The Solicitor General as amicus 1953-2000 How influential? , 2003 .

[23]  William D. Berry,et al.  Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries , 2000, American Political Science Review.

[24]  D. Songer,et al.  Why the Haves Don't Always Come Out Ahead: Repeat Players Meet Amici CCuriae for the Disadvantaged , 2000 .

[25]  Thomas W. Merrill,et al.  The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court , 2000 .

[26]  Donald R. Songer,et al.  The Religious Right in Court: The Decision Making of Christian Evangelicals in State Supreme Courts , 1999, The Journal of Politics.

[27]  Kevin T. McGuire.  Explaining Executive Success in the U.S. Supreme Court , 1998 .

[28]  James F. Spriggs,et al.  Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court , 1997 .

[29]  Kevin T. McGuire.  Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success , 1995, The Journal of Politics.

[30]  Lee Epstein,et al.  Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Revisited , 1989, The Journal of Politics.

[31]  Kevin T. McGuire.  Amici Curiae and Strategies for Gaining Access to the Supreme Court , 1994 .

[32]  N. Devins.  Unitariness and Independence: Solicitor General Control over Independent Agency Litigation , 1994 .

[33]  Reginald S. Sheehan.  Federal Agencies and the Supreme Court , 1992 .

[34]  Reginald S. Sheehan,et al.  Ideology, Status, and The Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court , 1992, American Political Science Review.

[35]  J. Segal.  Supreme Court Support for the Solicitor General: the Effect of Presidential Appointments , 1990 .

[36]  John R. Wright,et al.  Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court , 1988, American Political Science Review.

[37]  R. G. Wilkins.  An Officer and an Advocate: The Role of the Solicitor General , 1988 .

[38]  Stanton Wheeler,et al.  Do the Haves Come out Ahead - Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970 , 1987 .

[39]  J. Segal.  Supreme Court Justices as Human Decision Makers: An Individual-Level Analysis of the Search and Seizure Cases , 1986, The Journal of Politics.

[40]  L. Epstein,et al.  Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation: An Appraisal of Hakman's "Folklore" , 1981 .

[41]  M. Galanter,et al.  Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change , 1974, Discussions in Dispute Resolution.

[42]  Samuel Krislov.  The Amicus Curiae Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy , 1963 .