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

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 .

[1]  S. Ulmer,et al.  The Decision to Grant or Deny Certiorari: Further Consideration of Cue Theory , 1972 .

[2]  A. Bentley,et al.  The Process Of Government , 1908 .

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

[4]  L. Baum Policy Goals in Judicial Gatekeeping: A Proximity Model of Discretionary Jurisdiction , 1977 .

[5]  D. Songer Concern for Policy Outputs as a Cue for Supreme Court Decisions on Certiorari , 1979, The Journal of Politics.

[6]  S. Ulmer Conflict with Supreme Court Precedent and the Granting of Plenary Review , 1983, Journal of Politics.

[7]  J. W. Peltason Federal courts in the political process , 1955 .

[8]  R. Scigliano,et al.  The Supreme Court and the Presidency , 1971 .

[9]  G. Schubert,et al.  Judicial Decision-Making. , 1964 .

[10]  W. Murphy Elements of judicial strategy , 1965 .

[11]  J. Segal Amicus Curiae Briefs By the Solicitor General During the Warren and Burger Courts: a Research Note , 1988 .

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

[13]  David W. Rohde Policy Goals, Strategic, Choice and Majority Opinion Assignments in the U. S. Supreme Court , 1972 .

[14]  S. Brenner The New Certiorari Game , 1979, The Journal of Politics.

[15]  P. Schmidt,et al.  Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. , 1984 .

[16]  S. Ulmer The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a Predictive Variable , 1984, American Political Science Review.

[17]  Lincoln Caplan The tenth justice , 1987 .

[18]  J. Palmer An econometric analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's certiorari decisions , 1982 .

[19]  L. J. Barker Third Parties in Litigation: A Systemic View of the Judicial Function , 1967, The Journal of Politics.

[20]  Karen G. O'Connor,et al.  “Friends as Foes: The Amicus Curiae Participation and Effectiveness of the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans for Effective Law Enforcement in Criminal Cases, 1969–1982”* , 1987 .

[21]  H. Levin,et al.  Supreme Court Practice , 2007 .

[22]  B. Ennis Effective Amicus Briefs , 1984 .

[23]  S. Baker A Practical Guide to Certiorari , 1984 .

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

[25]  Nathan Hakman Lobbying the Supreme Court—An Appraisal of "Political Science Folklore" , 1966 .

[26]  Gregory A. Caldeira The United States Supreme Court and Criminal Cases, 1935–1976: Alternative Models of Agenda Building , 1981, British Journal of Political Science.

[27]  Jeffrey A. Segal,et al.  Supreme Court Decision Making , 1975 .

[28]  K. L. Schlozman,et al.  Organized interests and American democracy , 1986 .

[29]  Peter Linzer The Meaning of Certiorari Denials , 1979 .

[30]  Jack L. Walker The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America , 1983, American Political Science Review.

[31]  G. Maddala Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics: Introduction , 1983 .

[32]  Stuart H. Teger,et al.  The Cue Theory of Supreme Court Certiorari Jurisdiction: A Reconsideration , 1980, The Journal of Politics.

[33]  R. Coulam,et al.  Governing Through Courts , 1981 .

[34]  D. Provine Case selection in the United States Supreme Court , 1980 .

[35]  Charles A. Johnson,et al.  Certiorari Decisions by the Warren & Burger Courts: Is Cue Theory Time Bound? , 1982, Polity.

[36]  E. Muller,et al.  Frontiers of judicial research , 1969 .

[37]  L. Epstein,et al.  The Rise of Conservative Interest Group Litigation , 1983, The Journal of Politics.