Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-01T17:23:37.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Paul M. Collins Jr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Amicus curiae participation is a staple of interest group activity in the U.S. Supreme Court. While a reasonably large body of scholarship has accumulated regarding the effectiveness of this method of participation, little attention has been paid to examining the reasons why amicus participation might increase litigation success. In this article, I test two separate, but not mutually exclusive, theories as to why amicus briefs may be effective. The first, the affected groups hypothesis, suggests amicus briefs are influential because they signal to the Court how many groups and individuals will be potentially affected by the decision. The second, the information hypothesis, proposes that amicus briefs are effective because they provide the Court with added information that buttresses the arguments of the direct parties. When subjected to empirical verification, the results indicate that not only does amicus participation increase litigation success, but also that this influence may be best explained by the information hypothesis.

Type
Articles of General Interest
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 807 - 832
Copyright
© 2004 Law and Society 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.)

Footnotes

I thank Dave Clark, Wendy Martinek, Steve Wasby, the editor, and the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments on earlier versions of this article; Harold Spaeth for his assistance in coding the categories of litigants used in this analysis; and especially Tom Brunell for his patient assistance in merging the two data sets utilized in this project. Naturally, I assume all responsibility for errors in fact and/or judgment. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, Georgia, November 7–10, 2001, and at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 25–28, 2002.

References

References

Behuniak-Long, Susan (1991) “Friendly Fire: Amici Curiae and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services,” 74 Judicature 261–70.Google Scholar
Beveridge, Albert J. (1947) The Life of John Marshall. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.Google Scholar
Bickel, Alexander M. (1986) The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Bradley, Robert C., & Gardner, Paul (1985) “Underdogs, Upperdogs and the Use of the Amicus Brief: Trends and Explanations,” 10 The Justice System J. 78–96.Google Scholar
Breyer, Stephen (1998) “The Interdependence of Science and Law,” 82 Judicature 24–7. pmid/10095414Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., & Wright, John R. (1988) “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court,” 82 American Political Science Rev. 1109–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casper, Jonathan D. (1976) “The Supreme Court and National Policymaking,” 70 American Political Science Rev. 50–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Covey, Frank M. Jr. (1953) “Amicus Curiae: Friend of the Court,” 9 DePaul Law Rev. 30–7.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert (1957) “Decision Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policymaker,” 6 J. of Public Law 279–95.Google Scholar
Day, Jack G. (2001) “Words that Counted—A Vignette,” 52 Case Western Reserve Law Rev. 373–4.Google Scholar
Deen, Rebecca E., Ignagni, Joseph, & Meernik, James (2003) “The Solicitor General as Amicus, 1953–2000: How Influential?,” 87 Judicature 60–71. pmid/12677912Google Scholar
Douglas, William O. (1962) “Transcript of Conversations between Justice William O. Douglas and Professor Walter F. Murphy.” Cassette Number 9: May 23, 1962. On file with the Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Ennis, Bruce L. (1984) “Effective Amicus Briefs,” 33 Catholic University Law Rev. 603–9.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee (1985) Conservatives in Court. Knoxville: The Univ. of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee (1991) “Courts and Interest Groups,” in Gates, J. & Johnson, C., eds., The American Courts: A Critical Assessment. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Knight, Jack (1998) The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Knight, Jack (1999) “Mapping Out the Strategic Terrain: The Informational Role of Amici Curiae,” in Clayton, C. & Gillman, H., eds., Supreme Court Decision Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Rowland, C. K. (1991) “Debunking the Myth of Interest Group Invincibility in the Courts,” 85 American Political Science Rev. 205–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey A., Spaeth, Harold J., & Walker, Thomas G. (1994) The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions, and Developments, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Flaherty, Francis J. (1983) “Amicus: A Friend or Foe?,” National Law J. 14 Nov., 1.Google Scholar
Flemming, Roy B., & Dan Wood, B. (1997) “The Public and the Supreme Court: Individual Justice Responsiveness to American Policy Moods,” 41 American J. of Political Science 468–98.Google Scholar
Funston, Richard (1975) “The Supreme Court and Critical Elections,” 69 American Political Science Rev. 795–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, Marc (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law & Society Rev. 95–160.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. (1997) United States Supreme Court Judicial Database, Phase II: 1953–1993. Houston, TX: Univ. of Houston [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, Michael W., & Zorn, Christopher (2000) “Gibson Versus Case-Based Approaches: Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part,” 10 Law & Courts 10–16.Google Scholar
Greene, William H. (2000) Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hagle, Timothy M., & Spaeth, Harold J. (1993) “Ideological Patterns in the Justices' Voting in the Burger Court's Business Cases,” 55 J. of Politics 495–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansford, Thomas G. (2004) “Information Provision, Organizational Constraints, and the Decision to Submit an Amicus Curiae Brief in a U.S. Supreme Court Case,” 57 Political Research Q. 219–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hojnacki, Marie (1997) “Interest Groups' Decisions to Join Alliances or Work Alone,” 41 American J. of Political Science 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivers, Gregg, & O'Connor, Karen (1987) “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,” 9 Law & Policy 161–78.Google Scholar
Kearney, Joseph D., & Merrill, Thomas W. (2000) “The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court,” 148 University of Pennsylvania Law Rev. 743–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, David C., & Walker, Jack L. (1992) “The Provision of Benefits by Interest Groups in the United States,” 54 J. of Politics 394–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolbert, Kathryn (1989) “The Webster Amicus Curiae Briefs: Perspectives on the Abortion Controversy and the Role of the Supreme Court,” 15 American J. of Law and Medicine 153–68.Google ScholarPubMed
Koshner, Andrew Jay (1998) Solving the Puzzle of Interest Group Litigation. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Krislov, Samuel (1963) “The Amicus Curiae Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy,” 72 Yale Law J. 694–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, Spriggs, James F., & Wahlbeck, Paul J. (2000) Crafting Law on the Supreme Court. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, Thomas (1989) Public Opinion and the Supreme Court. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. (1990) “Obscenity, Libertarian Values and Decision Making in the Supreme Court,” 18 American Politics Q. 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. (1995) “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success,” 57 J. of Politics 187–96.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. (1998) “Explaining Executive Success in the U.S. Supreme Court,” 51 Political Research Q. 505–26.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. (2002) Understanding the U.S. Supreme Court: Cases and Controversies. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T., & Palmer, Barbara (1995) “Issue Fluidity on the U.S. Supreme Court,” 89 American Political Science Rev. 691–702. pmid/7734389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishler, William, & Sheehan, Reginald S. (1993) “The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions,” 87 American Political Science Rev. 87–101. pmid/8465409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishler, William, & Sheehan, Reginald S. (1994) “Popular Influence on Supreme Court Decisions: A Response,” 88 American Political Science Rev. 716–24. pmid/7824802Google Scholar
Moe, Terry M. (1980) The Organization of Interests: Incentives and the Internal Dynamics of Political Interest Groups. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Munford, Luther T. (1999) “When Does the Curiae Need an Amicus?,” 1 The J. of Appellate Practice & Process 279–84.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. (1964) Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Norpoth, Helmut, & Segal, Jeffrey A. (1994) “Popular Influence on Supreme Court Decisions,” 88 American Political Science Rev. 711–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, Karen (1980) Women's Organizations' Use of the Courts. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen, & Epstein, Lee (1982) “Amicus Participation in the U.S. Supreme Court: An Appraisal of Hackman's Folklore,” 16 Law & Society Rev. 311–20.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen, & Epstein, Lee (1983) “Court Rules and Workload: A Case Study of Rules Governing Amicus Curiae Participation,” 8 The Justice System J. 35–45.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur Jr. (1965) The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Perry, H. W. Jr. (1991) Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Puro, Steven (1971) “The Role of Amicus Curiae in the United States Supreme Court: 1920–1966.” Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at BuffaloGoogle Scholar
Puro, Steven (1981) “The United States as Amicus Curiae,” in Ulmer, S., ed., Courts, Law and Judicial Processes. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Rustad, Michael, & Koenig, Thomas (1993) “The Supreme Court and Junk Social Science: Selective Distortion in Amicus Briefs,” 72 North Carolina Law Rev. 91–162.Google Scholar
Salokar, Rebecca Mae (1992) The Solicitor General: The Politics of Law. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon (1959) Quantitative Analysis of Judicial Behavior. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.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,” 41 Western Political Q. 135–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Cover, Albert (1989) “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices,” 83 American Political Science Rev. 557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., Epstein, Lee, Cameron, Charles M., & Spaeth, Harold J. (1995) “Ideological Values and the Votes of Justices Revisited,” 57 J. of Politics 812–23. pmid/8580611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Spaeth, Harold J. (1993) The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Reginald S., Mishler, William, & Songer, Donald R. (1992) “Ideology, Status and the Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court,” 86 American Political Science Rev. 464–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., & Kuersten, Ashlyn (1995) “The Success of Amici in State Supreme Courts,” 48 Political Research Q. 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Kuersten, Ashlyn, & Kaheny, Erin (2000) “Why the Haves Don't Always Come Out Ahead: Repeat Players Meet Amici Curiae for the Disadvantaged,” 53 Political Research Q. 537–56.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., & Sheehan, Reginald S. (1993) “Interest Group Success in the Courts: Amicus Participation in the Supreme Court,” 46 Political Research Q. 339–54.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. (1999) United States Supreme Court Judicial Database, 1953–1997 Terms, 9th ICPSR version. East Lansing: Michigan State Univ., Department of Political Science [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].Google Scholar
Spriggs, James F., & Wahlbeck, Paul J. (1997) “Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court,” 50 Political Research Q. 365–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statacorp, (1999) User's Guide: Release 6.0. College Station. Texas: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert L., Gressman, Eugene, Shapiro, Stephen M., & Geller, Kenneth S. (2002) Supreme Court Practice: For Practice in the Supreme Court of the United States, 8th ed. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. (1985) “Regression in Time and Space: A Statistical Essay,” 29 American J. of Political Science 914–47.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A., MacKuen, Michael B., & Erickson, Robert S. (1995) “Dynamic Representation,” 89 American Political Science Rev. 543–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stumpf, Harry. P. (1998) American Judicial Politics, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Sungaila, Mary-Christine (1999) “Effective Amicus Practice Before the United States Supreme Court: A Case Study,” 8 Southern California Rev. of Law & Women's Studies 187–95.Google Scholar
Vose, Clement E. (1955) “NAACP Strategies in the Covenant Cases,” 6 Western Law Rev. 101–45.Google Scholar
Vose, Clement E. (1967) Caucasians Only: The Supreme Court, the NAACP, and the Restrictive Covenant Cases. Berkeley: The Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Thomas G., & Epstein, Lee (1993) The Supreme Court of the United States: An Introduction. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Wasby, Stephen L. (1995) Race Relations Litigation in an Age of Complexity. Charlottesville: Univ. Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Stanton, Cartwright, Bliss, Kagan, Robert, & Friedman, Lawrence (1987) “Do the Haves' Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870–1970,” 21 Law & Society Rev. 403–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, Jeff (2002) Popular Justice: Presidential Prestige and Executive Success in the Supreme Court. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cases Cited

Atkins v. Virginia, 122 S. Ct. 2242 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 119 S. Ct. 1661 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mapp v. Ohio, 81 S. Ct. 1684 (1961).Google Scholar
Regents of California v. Bakke, 98 S. Ct. 2733 (1978).Google Scholar
School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 107 S. Ct. 1123 (1987).Google Scholar
Teague v. Lane, 109 S. Ct. 1060 (1989).Google Scholar
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989).Google Scholar