Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T09:06:13.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ideology, Status, and The Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Reginald S. Sheehan ,
William Mishler  and
Donald R. Songer
Reginald S. Sheehan
Affiliation:
University of North Texas
William Mishler
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina
Donald R. Songer
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A substantial literature on lower federal courts and state courts suggests that the “haves” usually come out ahead in litigation because they possess superior resources for it and they reap advantages from their repeat player status. We investigate the success of 10 categories of litigants before the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts to determine whether the resources or experience of litigants has effects on Supreme Court outcomes paralleling those found in the courts below. While different categories of litigants are found to have very different rates of success, those differences do not consistently favor litigants with greater resources. A time series analysis of the success of different categories of litigants over the 36 years studied suggests that the changing ideological complexion of the Court has a greater impact on the success of litigants than differences among litigants in resources and experience.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 86 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 464 - 471
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1992 

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

Box, George E., and Jenkins, Gwilyn M.. 1976. Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control. Rev. ed. San Francisco: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1957. “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policymaker.” Journal of Public Law 6:279–95.Google Scholar
Freeman, John R. 1983. “Granger Causality and Time Series Analysis of Political Relationships.” American Journal of Political Science 27:327–58.10.2307/2111021Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Social Change.” Law and Society Review 9:95–160.10.2307/3053023Google Scholar
Granger, Clive William John. 1969. “Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross Spectral Methods.” Econometrica 37:424–38.10.2307/1912791Google Scholar
Granger, Clive William John, and Newbold, Paul. 1986. Forecasting Economic Time Series. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
Rohde, David, and Spaeth, Harold. 1976. Supreme Court Decisionmaking. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon. 1965. The Judicial Mind. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cover, Albert. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83:557–65.10.2307/1962405Google Scholar
Sheehan, Reginald S., and Songer, Donald R.. 1989. “Parties before the United States Courts of Appeals in the 1980s.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Tate, C. Neal. 1981. “Personal Attribute Models of Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economics Decisions, 1946–1978.” American Political Science Review 75:355–67.10.2307/1961370Google Scholar
Wheeler, Stanton, Cartwright, Bliss, Kagan, Robert, and Friedman, Lawrence. 1987. “Do the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870–1970.” Law and Society Review 21:403–45.10.2307/3053377Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.