What Moves the Court? Interest Groups, Public Opinion, Court Composition and the Solicitor General
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2002.23.0.245-260Abstract
The impact of several major types of interest groups, the solicitor general, Court composition, and American public opinion on U.S. Supreme Court decision-making is tested with a poll-matched database from the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts. Results indicate that the solicitor general’s position, American public opinion, Court composition, and a few (but not most) interest groups all significantly and independently affect Supreme Court decision-making.References
Behuniak-Long, Susan. 1991. Friendly Fire: Amici Curiae and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. Judicature 74:261-270.
Bentley, Arthur. 1908. The Process of Government. Evanston, IL: Principia Press.
Best, Samuel. 1999. The Sampling Problem in Measuring Policy Mood: An Alternative Solution. Journal of Politics 61:721-740. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2647825
Bronner, Ethan. 1989. Battle for Justice: How the Bork Nomination Shook America. New York: W.W. Norton.
Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright. 1988. Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 82:1109-1127. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1961752
Caldeira, Gregory A., Marie Hojnacki, and John R. Wright. 1996. Campaigning for the Supreme Court: The Dynamics of Public Opinion on the Thomas Nomination. Journal of Politics 58:655-681. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2960437
Caldeira, Gregory A., Marie Hojnacki, and John R. Wright. 2000. The Lobbying Activities of Organized Interests in Federal Judicial Nominations. Journal of Politics 62:51-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00003
Caplan, Lincoln. 1987. The Tenth Justice. New York: Vintage Books.
Cortner, Richard C. 1968. Strategies and Tactics of Litigants in Constitutional Cases. Journal of Public Law 17:287-307.
Cortner, Richard C. 1970. The Apportionment Cases. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
Cortner, Richard C. 1988. A Mob Intent on Death: The NAACP and the Arkansas Riot Cases. Middletown CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Cortner, Richard C. 1993. The Iron Horse and the Constitution. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
DeGregorio, Christine, and Jack F. Rossotti. 1994. Resources, Attitudes and Strategies: Interest Group Participation in the Bork Confirmation Process. The American Review of Politics 15:1-19.
Epstein, Lee. 1985. Conservatives in Court. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
Epstein, Lee. 1993. Interest Group Litigation during the Rehnquist Court Era. Journal of Law & Politics 9:639-717.
Epstein, Lee, and Claude K. Rowland. 1991. Debunking the Myth of Interest Group Invincibility in the Courts. American Political Science Review 85:205-217. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1962886
Epstein, Lee, Valerie Hoekstra, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Harold J. Spaeth. 1998. Do Political Preferences Change? A Longitudinal Study of U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Journal of Politics 60:801-818. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2647649
Epstein, Lee, and Joseph F. Kobylka. 1992. The Supreme Court and Legal Change: Abortion and the Death Penalty. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Epstein, Lee and Jack Knight. 1999. Mapping Out the Strategic Terrain: The Informational Role of Amici Curiae. Pp 215-236 in Cornell W. Clayton and Howard Gillman, eds., Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, Harold J. Spaeth, and Thomas G. Walker. 1996. The Supreme Court Compendium. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Eskridge, William, Jr. 1991. Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretative Decisions. Yale Law Journal 101:331-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/796805
Flemming, Roy, and B. Dan Wood. 1997. The Public and the Supreme Court: Individual Justice Responsiveness to American Policy Moods. American Journal of Political Science 41:468-498. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111773
George, Tracy E., and Lee Epstein. 1992. On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making. American Political Science Review 86:323-337. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1964223
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. 1988. Informing the Public about the U.S. Supreme Court's Work. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 29:275-288.
Holmes, Oliver Wendell. 1881. The Common Law. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Ivers, Gregg. 1992. Religious Organizations as Constitutional Litigants. Polity 25:243-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3235110
Ivers, Gregg. 1995. To Build a Wall: American Jews and Separation of Church and State. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Ivers, Gregg, and Karen OíConnor. 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 9:161-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1987.tb00404.x
Kluger, Richard. 1976. Simple Justice. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/e309762005-014
Kobylka, Joseph F. 1991. The Politics of Obscenity. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Krislov, Samuel. 1963. The Amicus Curiae Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy. Yale Law Journal 72:694-721. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/794698
Lawrence, Susan. 1990. The Poor in Court: The Legal Services Program and Supreme Court Decision Making. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400861460
Lichtman, Judith. 1990. Public Interest Groups and the Bork Nomination. Northwestern University Law Review 84:979-1014.
Manwaring, David R. 1962. Render Unto Caesar: The Flag Salute Controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marshall, Thomas R. 1989. Public Opinion and the Supreme Court. Winchester, MA: Unwin Hyman.
Marshall, Thomas R. 2001. Patterns in Representation: Public Opinion and the Rehnquist Court Justices. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association annual meeting, San Francisco, CA.
McGuire, Kevin T. 1994. Amici Curiae and Strategies for Gaining Access to the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly 47:821-837. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299404700402 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448859
McGuire, Kevin T. 1995. Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success. Journal of Politics 57:187-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2960277
McGuire, Kevin T., and Gregory A. Caldeira. 1993. Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity: Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 87:717-728. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2938746
McGuire, Kevin T., and James A. Stimson. 2000. The Least Dangerous Branch Revisited: New Evidence on Supreme Court Responsiveness to Public Preferences. Paper prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
Medalie, Richard C. 1968. From Escobedo to Miranda: The Anatomy of a Supreme Court Decision. Washington, DC: Lerner Book Co.
Mezey, Susan Gluck. 1996. Children in Court. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Mischler, William, and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1993. The Supreme Court as a Counter-majoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions. American Political Science Review 87:87-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2938958
Mischler, William, and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1994. Response: Popular Influence on Supreme Court Decisions. American Political Science Review 88:716-724.
Molot, Jonathan. 2000. The Judicial Perspective in the Administrative State. Stanford Law Review 53:1-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1229418
Norpoth, Helmut, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 1994. Comment: Popular Influence on Supreme Court Decisions. American Political Science Review 88:711-716. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2944805
OíBrien, David M. 2000. Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics, 5th ed. New York: W.W. Norton.
O'Connor, Karen. 1980. Womenís Organizationsí Use of the Courts. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
O'Connor, Karen, and Bryan Scott McFall. 1992. Conservative Interest Group Litigation in the Reagan Era and Beyond. In The Politics of Interests: Interest Groups Transformed, ed. Mark Petracca. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Olson, Mancur. 1984. Clients and Lawyers: Securing the Rights of Disabled Persons. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
O'Neill, Timothy J. 1985. Bakke & The Politics of Equality. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Rehnquist, William H. 1986. Constitutional Law and Public Opinion. Suffolk University Law Review 20:751-769.
Rehnquist, William H. 1987. The Supreme Court: How It Was, How It Is. New York: Wm. Morrow.
Salokar, Rebecca Mae. 1992. The Solicitor General: The Politics of Law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Savage, David G. 1995. Docket Reflects Ideological Shifts---Shrinking caseload, cert denials suggest an unfolding agenda. ABA Journal, December, pp. 40-42.
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1988. Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General During the Warren and Burger Courts. Western Political Quarterly 41:135-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591298804100109 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448461
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1990. Supreme Court Support for the Solicitor General: The Effects of Presidential Appointments. Western Political Quarterly 43:137-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299004300110 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448510
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Albert D. Cover. 1989. Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices. American Political Science Review 83:557-565. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1962405
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cheryl D. Reedy. 1988. The Supreme Court and Sex Discrimination: The Role of the Solicitor General. Western Political Quarterly 41:553-568. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448602 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591298804100309
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Segal, Jeffrey A., Lee Epstein, Charles M. Cameron, and Harold J. Spaeth. 1995. Ideological Values and the Votes of Justices Revisited. Journal of Politics 57:812-823. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2960194
Shapiro, Martin. 1964. Law and Politics in the Supreme Court. New York: The Free Press.
Shapiro, Martin. 1968. The Supreme Court and Administrative Agencies. New York: The Free Press.
Sheehan, Reginald S. 1990. Administrative Agencies and the Court. Western Political Quarterly 43:875-885. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448740 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299004300411
Sheehan, Reginald S., William Mishler, and Donald R. Songer. 1992. Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 86:464-471. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1964234
Solomine, Michael, and James Walker. 1992. The Next Word: Congressional Response to Supreme Court Statutory Decisions. Temple Law Review 65:425-458.
Songer, Donald R., Ashlyn Kuersten, and Erin Kaheny. 2000. Why the Haves Don't Always Come Out Ahead: Repeat Players Meet Amici Curiae for the Disadvantaged. Political Research Quarterly 53:537-556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591290005300305 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/449197
Sorauf, Frank J. 1976. The Wall of Separation: Constitutional Politics of Church and State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Spriggs, James F., II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 1997. Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly 50:365-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299705000206
Stimson, James A. 1991, 1999. Public Opinion in AmericaóMoods, Cycles, and Swings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Stimson, James A., Michael B. MacKuen, and Robert S. Erikson. 1995. Dynamic Representation. American Political Science Review 89:543-565. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2082973
Toner, Robin. 2001. Interest Groups Set for Battle on a Supreme Court Vacancy. The New York Times, April 21, p. 1A.
Vose, Clement E. 1957. The National Consumers' League and the Brandeis Brief. Midwest Journal of Political Science 1:178-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2109304
Wasby, Stephen L. 1995. Race Relations Litigation in an Age of Complexity. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Way, Frank, and Barbara J. Burt. 1983. Religious Marginality and the Free Exercise Clause. American Political Science Review 77:652-665. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1957265
Wilcox, Clyde. 1992. God's Warriors: The Christian Right in Twentieth-Century America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wilcox, Clyde. 1996. Onward Christian Soldiers: The Christian Right in Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:
The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;
Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
The Author represents and warrants that:
the Work is the Author’s original work;
the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
the Work has not previously been published;
the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
