Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T05:59:35.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pursuing Change or Pursuing Credit? Litigation and Credit Claiming on Social Media

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 February 2023

Anna Gunderson Open the ORCID record for Anna Gunderson [Opens in a new window] ,
Kirsten Widner Open the ORCID record for Kirsten Widner [Opens in a new window]  and
Maggie Macdonald Open the ORCID record for Maggie Macdonald [Opens in a new window]
Anna Gunderson*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Kirsten Widner
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
Maggie Macdonald
Affiliation:
Center for Social Media and Politics, New York University, New York, NY, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: agunderson@lsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interest groups often post about their judicial advocacy on social media. We argue that they do so for two main reasons. First, providing information about the courts on social media builds the group’s credibility as a source of information with policymakers, media and the public. Second, social media provides a way to claim credit for litigation activity and outcomes, which can increase membership and aid in fundraising. Using original datasets of millions of tweets and Facebook posts by interest groups, we provide evidence that interest groups use social media for public education and to credit claim for their litigation activity.

Keywords

social mediainterest groupsamicus briefsjudicial advocacy
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , April 2024 , pp. 87 - 109
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association

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

Baumgartner, Frank R., and Leech, Beth L.. 1998. Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Berry, Jeffrey M. 1977. Lobbying for the People: The Political Behavior of Public Interest Groups. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Berry, Jeffrey M. 2003. A Voice for Nonprofits. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Bils, Peter, Rothenberg, Lawrence S., and Smith, Bradley C.. 2020. “The amicus game.” The Journal of Politics 82(3). https://doi.org/10.1086/707795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bortree, Denise Sevick, and Seltzer, Trent. 2009. “Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles.” Public Relations Review 35(3): 317–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Christenson, Dino P., and Hitt, Matthew P.. 2013. “Quality over quantity: Amici influence and judicial decision making.” American Political Science Review 107(3): 446–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Heath. 2015. “The institutional digital divide: Immigrant-serving nonprofit organization adoption of social media.” Social Science Computer Review 33(6): 680–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, William P. 1998. Groups, Interests, and US Public Policy. Washington: Georgetown University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R.. 1990. “Amici curiae before the Supreme Court: Who participates, when, and how much?” The Journal of Politics 52(3): 782–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R.. 1998. “Lobbying for justice: Organized interests Supreme Court nominations, and United States Senate.” American Journal of Political Science 42(2): 499–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., Hojnacki, Marie, and Wright, John R.. 2000. “The lobbying activities of organized interests in federal judicial nominations.” Journal of Politics 62(1): 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, Adam William. 2013. “Trading information for access: Informational lobbying strategies and interest group access to the European Union.” Journal of European Public Policy 20(1): 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, Adam William, and Shotton, Paul Alexander. 2016. “Changing the face of advocacy? Explaining interest organizations’ use of social media strategies.” Political Communication 33(3): 374–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christenson, Dino P., and Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M.. 2017. “Why amicus curiae cosigners come and go: A dynamic model of interest group networks.” In Complex Networks & Their Applications V, edited by Cherifi, Hocine, Gaito, Sabrina, Quattrociocchi, Walter, and Sala, Alessandra, 349–360. Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul Jr. 2004. “Friends of the court: Examining the influence of amicus curiae participation in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.” Law & Society Review 38(4): 807–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul Jr. 2008. Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul Jr. 2018. “The use of amicus briefs.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14: 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul Jr., and Solowiej, Lisa. 2007. “Interest group participation, competition, and conflict in the US Supreme Court.” Law & Social Inquiry 32(4): 955–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul Jr., Corley, Pamela, and Hamner, Jesse. 2015. “The influence of amicus curiae briefs on U.S. Supreme Court opinion content.” Law & Society Review 49(4): 917–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figenschou, Tine Ustad, and Fredheim, Nanna Alida. 2020. “Interest groups on social media: Four forms of networked advocacy.” Journal of Public Affairs 20(2): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gainous, Jason, and Wagner, Kevin. 2014. Tweeting to Power: The Social Media Revolution in American Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gillion, Daniel Q. 2013. The Political Power of Protest: Minority Activism and Shifts in Public Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golbeck, Jennifer, Grimes, Justin, and Rogers, Anthony. 2010. “Twitter use by the US Congress.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(8): 1612–1621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graber, Mark A. 2006. “Legal, strategic or legal strategy: Deciding to decide during the Civil War and Reconstruction.” In The Supreme Court & American Political Development, edited by Kahn, Ronald and Kersch, Ken I., 33–66, Chapter 1. Oxford: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Grossmann, Matt. 2012. The Not-So-Special Interests: Interest Groups, Public Representation, and American Governance. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, Chao, and Saxton, Gregory D.. 2014. “Tweeting social change: How social media are changing nonprofit advocacy.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(1): 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, Chao, and Saxton, Gregory D.. 2020. The Quest for Attention: Nonprofit Advocacy in a Social Media Age. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, Chao, and Musso, Juliet A.. 2007. “Representation in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A conceptual framework.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 36(2): 308–326.Google Scholar
Hansford, Thomas. 2004a. “Information provision, organizational constraints, and the decision to submit an amicus curiae brief in a U.S. Supreme Court case.” Political Research Quarterly 57(2): 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansford, Thomas. 2004b. “Lobbying strategies, venue selection, and organized interest involvement at the US Supreme Court.” American Politics Research 32(2): 170–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazelton, Morgan, Hinkle, Rachael, and Spriggs, James. 2019. “The influence of unique information in briefs on Supreme Court opinion content.” Justice System Journal 40(2): 126–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemphill, Libby, Russell, Annelise, and Schöpke-Gonzalez, Angela. 2021. “What drives US congressional members’ policy attention on Twitter?” Policy & Internet 13(2): 233–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemphill, Libby, Culotta, Aron, and Heston, Matthew. 2013. “Framing in social media: How the US Congress uses Twitter hashtags to frame political issues.” Available at SSRN 2317335. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2317335Google Scholar
Holyoke, Thomas. 2003. “Choosing battlegrounds: Interest group lobbying across multiple venues.” Political Research Quarterly 56 (3): 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Dennis. 2011. Campaigning in the Twenty-First Century: A Whole New Ballgame? Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Ronald. 1999. “Institutional norms and Supreme Court decision-making: the Rehnquist Court on privacy and religion.” In Supreme Court Decision-making: New Institutionalist Approaches, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 175.Google Scholar
Kreiss, Daniel, Lawrence, Regina, and McGregor, Shannon. 2018. “In their own words: Political practitioner accounts of candidates, audiences, affordances, genres, and timing in strategic social media use.” Political Communication 35(1): 8–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipinski, Daniel. 2004. Congressional Communication: Content and Consequences. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovejoy, Kristen, Waters, Richard, and Saxton, Gregory. 2012. “Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less.” Public Relations Review 38(2): 313–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, Maggie. 2020. “Money please! Testing the interest group connection.” Working Paper.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Maggie, Gunderson, Anna, and Widner, Kirsten. 2022. “Interest groups and social media usage: How do organizations’ posts differ across Facebook and Twitter?” Working Paper.Google Scholar
McCann, Michael. 2006. “Law and social movements: Contemporary perspectives.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2: 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, Shannon, and Molyneux, Logan. 2020. “Twitter’s influence on news judgment: An experiment among journalists.” Journalism 21(5): 597–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nownes, Anthony, and Freeman, Patricia. 1998. “Interest group activity in the states.” The Journal of Politics 60(1): 86–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obar, Jonathan, Zube, Paul, and Lampe, Clifford. 2012. “Advocacy 2.0: An analysis of how advocacy groups in the United States perceive and use social media as tools for facilitating civic engagement and collective action.” Journal of Information Policy 2: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Vol. 124. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Susan M. 1990. “Interest-group litigation in federal district court: Beyond the political disadvantage theory.” The Journal of Politics 52(3): 854–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Ryan J., and Lee, Epstein. 2005. “Amici curiae during the Rehnquist years.” Judicature 89: 127.Google Scholar
Pope, James Gray. 1990. “Republican moments: The role of direct popular power in the American constitutional order.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 139: 287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Tierney, John T.. 1986. Organized Interests and American Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey, Cameron, Charles, and Cover, Albert. 1992. “A spatial model of roll call voting: Senators, constituents, presidents, and interest groups in supreme court confirmations.” American Journal of Political Science 36(1): 96–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 1989. “Interest groups and Supreme Court appointments.” Northwestern University Law Review 84: 935.Google Scholar
Solberg, Rorie Spill, and Waltenburg, Eric. 2006. “Why do interest groups engage the judiciary? Policy wishes and structural needs.” Social Science Quarterly 87(3): 558–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spriggs, James, and Wahlbeck, Paul. 1997. “Amicus curiae and the role of information at the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 50(2): 365–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
der Graaf, Van, Amber, Simon Otjes, and Rasmussen, Anne. 2016. “Weapon of the weak? The social media landscape of interest groups.” European Journal of Communication 31(2): 120–135.10.1177/0267323115612210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vining, Richard L. Jr. 2011. “Grassroots mobilization in the digital age: Interest group response to Supreme Court nominees.” Political Research Quarterly 64(4): 790–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1991. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widner, Kirsten, Macdonald, Maggie, and Gunderson, Anna. 2022. “Lobbying inside (and) out: Interest group behavior on social media.” Working Paper.Google Scholar
Wofford, Claire B. 2015. “Assessing the anecdotes: Amicus curiae, legal rules, and the U.S. Supreme Court.” Justice System Journal 36(3): 274–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, Bob, and Armstrong, Scott. 2011. The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Gunderson et al. supplementary material

Appendix

Download Gunderson et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.7 MB