Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-07T05:31:24.056Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seasonal Affective Disorder: Clerk Training and the Success of Supreme Court Certiorari Petitions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

William D. Blake ,
Hans J. Hacker  and
Shon R. Hopwood
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigate why the Supreme Court grants a smaller percentage of cases at the first conference of each term compared to other conferences. According to received wisdom, Supreme Court law clerks are overly cautious at the beginning of their tenure because they receive only a brief amount of training. Reputational concerns motivate clerks to provide fewer recommendations to grant review in cert. pool memos written over the summer months. Using a random sample of petitions from the Blackmun Archives, we code case characteristics, clerk recommendation, and the Court's decision on cert. Nearest neighbor matching suggests clerks are 36 percent less likely to recommend grants in their early cert. pool memos. Because of this temporal discrepancy, petitions arriving over the summer have a 16 percent worse chance of being granted by the Court. This seasonal variation in access to the Court's docket imposes a legally irrelevant burden on litigants who have little control over the timing of their appeal.

Type
Articles on Society and the Supreme Court
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 973 - 997
Copyright
© 2015 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

We dedicate this article to H.W. Perry, who has inspired in each of us a love for the Supreme Court of the United States as an institution. The authors express our gratitude to Ryan Black and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. We also thank our research assistants who were most helpful in data gathering efforts–Ryan Mullenix, Ann Marie Metzner Hopwood, Jessicah Rauch, Nikki Clark, and Bryant Moy. This project was funded through a Faculty Association Research Award grant from Arkansas State University. Previous versions of this paper were presented at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association and the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Social Science Association.

References

Baum, Lawrence, & Ditslear, Corey. (2010) “Supreme Court Clerkships and ‘Feeder’ Judges.” 31 Justice System J. 26–48.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C, & Boyd, Christina L. (2012) “The Role of Law Clerks in the U.S. Supreme Court's Agenda-Setting Process.” 40 American Politics Research 147–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C., Boyd, Christina L., & Bryan, Amanda C. (2014) “Revisiting the Influence of Law Clerks on the U.S. Supreme Court's Agenda-Setting Process.” 98 Marquette Law Rev. 75–109.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C., & Owens, Ryan J. (2009) “Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court: The Collision of Policy and Jurisprudence.” 71 The J. of Politics 1062–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C., & Owens, Ryan J. (2012) “Consider the Source (and the Message) Supreme Court Justices and Strategic Audits of Lower Court Decisions.” 65 Political Research Q. 385–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, William D. (2012) “God Save This Honorable Court: Religion as a Source of Judicial Policy Preferences.” 65 Political Research Q. 814–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, William D., & Hacker, Hans J. (2010) “‘The Brooding Spirit of the Law’: Supreme Court Justices Reading Dissents from the Bench.” 31 Justice Systems J. 1–25.Google Scholar
Boskey, Bennett. (2012) “The Family of Stone Law Clerks and Their Justices.” in Peppers, T.C., & Ward, A., eds., In Chambers: Stories of Supreme Court Law Clerks, Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Boucher, Robert L., & Segal, Jeffrey A. (1995) “Supreme Court Justices as Strategic Decision Makers: Aggressive Grants and Defensive Denials on the Vinson Court.” 57 The J. of Politics 824–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Christina L., Epstein, Lee, & Martin, Andrew D. (2010) “Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging.” 54 American J. of Political Science 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, Saul. (2000) “Granting Certiorari by the United States Supreme Court: An Overview of the Social Science Studies.” 92 Law Library J. 193–201.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul, & Palmer, Jan. (1990) “The Law Clerks’ Recommendations and Chief Justice Vinson's Vote on Certiorari.” 18 American Politics Research 68–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, Saul, Whitmeyer, Joseph M., & Spaeth, Harold J. (2006) “The Outcome-Prediction Strategy in Cases Denied Certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.” 130 Public Choice 225–37.Google Scholar
Bryan, Amanda. (2012) “Principled Agents or Legal Rasputins? Influence, Ideology, and the Cert. Pool on the US Supreme Court.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Available at: http://www.tc.umn.edu/~bryan202/AmandaBryanWebsite/Research_files/ClerksPaper.pdf (accessed 4 March 4 2015).Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., Wright, John R., & Zorn, Christopher J.W. (1999) “Sophisticated Voting and Gate-Keeping in the Supreme Court.” 15 J. of Law, Economics, and Organization 549–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordray, Margaret, & Cordray, Richard. (2004) “The Calendar of the Justices: How the Supreme Court's Timing Affects Its Decisionmaking.” 36 Arizona State Law J. 183–255.Google Scholar
Cross, Frank B., & Lindquist, Stefanie. (2006) “The Decisional Significance of the Chief Justice.” 154 University of Pennsylvania Law Rev. 1665–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ditslear, Corey, & Baum, Lawrence. (2001) “Selection of Law Clerks and Polarization in the U.S. Supreme Court.” 63 The J. of Politics 869–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, et al. (2007) “The Judicial Common Space.” 23 J. of Law, Economics, and Organization 303–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gressman, Eugene. (2007) Supreme Court Practice, 7th ed. Arlington, VA: BNA.Google Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann. (1989) “Opinion Assignment Procedures and Conference Practices in State Supreme Courts.” 73 Judicature 209–14.Google 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
Johnson, Timothy R., Spriggs, James F., & Wahlbeck, Paul J. (2005) “Passing and Strategic Voting on the U.S. Supreme Court.” 39 Law & Society Rev. 349–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, & Zeng, Langche. (2001) “Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data.” 9 Political Analysis 137–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Jack, & Epstein, Lee. (1997) The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Kromphardt, Christopher. (2014) “Fielding an Excellent Team: Law Clerk Selection and Chambers Structure at the U.S. Supreme Court.” 98 Marquette Law Rev. 289–311.Google Scholar
Kromphardt, Christopher. (2015) “U.S. Supreme Court Law Clerks as Information Sources and Justice Decision Making.” 3 J. of Law & Courts 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarus, Edward. (2005) Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Liptak, Adam. (2008) “A Second Justice Opts Out of a Longtime Custom: The ‘Cert. Pool.’” The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/washington/26memo.html (accessed on 11 March 2013).Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, Spriggs, James F., & Wahlbeck, Paul J. (1999) “Strategy and Judicial Choice: New Institutionalist Approaches to Supreme Court Decision-Making.” in Clayton, C.W., & Gillman, H., eds. Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 15–42.Google Scholar
Mauro, Tony. (2004) “Rehnquist's Olive Branch Too Late?” Legal Times. Available at: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=900005539202 (accessed on 3 April 2013).Google Scholar
Nichols, Austin. (2007) “Causal Inference with Observational Data.” 7 Stata J. 507–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peppers, Todd C. (2006) Courtiers of the Marble Palace: The Rise and Influence of the Supreme Court Law Clerk. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peppers, Todd C, & Zorn, Christopher. (2008) “Law Clerk Influence on Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical Assessment.” 58 DePaul Law Rev. 51–77.Google Scholar
Perry, H.W. (1991) Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Provine, Doris Marie. (1980) Case Selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Spaeth, Harold J. (2002) The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stras, David R. (2006) “The Supreme Court's Gatekeepers: The Role of Law Clerks in the Certiorari Process.” 85 Texas Law Rev. 947–98.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Joseph, et al. (1963) “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Jurisdiction: Cue Theory.” in Schubert, G.A., & Aubert, V., eds. Judicial Decision-Making. Glencoe, IL: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. (1983) “Conflict with Supreme Court Precedents and the Granting of Plenary Review.” 45 J. of Politics 474–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. (1984) “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a Predictive Variable.” 78 The American Political Science Rev. 901–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Artemus, & Weiden, David (2006) Sorcerers’ Apprentices: 100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States Supreme Court. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, Richard. (2013) “About 2,000 Petitions Await Supreme Court's Return.” USA Today. Available at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/23/supreme-court-petitions-prisoners-clerks/2843401/(accessed on 31 March 2014).Google Scholar