Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T23:23:57.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State Coalitions, Informational Signals, and Success as Amicus Curiae at the U.S. Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Kayla S. Canelo Open the ORCID record for Kayla S. Canelo [Opens in a new window]
Kayla S. Canelo*
Affiliation:
University of California, Merced, Merced, CA, USA
*
Kayla S. Canelo, School of Social Sciences, Humanities and Arts, University of California, Merced, 5200 North Lake Rd., Merced, CA 95343, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

States are uniquely situated as both individual governments in the federal system and entities that represent the interests of their citizens. So, what makes groups of states successful when they lobby the Supreme Court as amicus curiae filers? I argue that it is not just the number of states included in a coalition that matters, but rather which states are included. In this article, I offer a theory that implies certain types of coalitions will be more influential than others, as these coalitions can vary in how representative they are of public preferences. I use a dataset on state amicus curiae filings from 1960 to 2013 to test the implications of my theory. I find that the regional diversity of coalitions increases the odds of state amicus curiae filers obtaining their preferred outcome, but the ideological heterogeneity of the group of states does not. This latter result is interesting given that it is contrary to the theoretical expectations of the existing scholarship on state amicus filings.

Keywords

federal/statefederalismpublic lawjudicial politicsstate attorneys generalrepresentationstates
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 108 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2019

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

Abramowitz, Alan I., and Saunders, Kyle L.. 2008. “Is Polarization a Myth?” The Journal of Politics 70 (2): 542–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, Lucius. 1967. “Third Parties in Litigation: A Systematic View of the Judicial Function.” The Journal of Politics 29 (1): 41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Fording, Richard C., Ringquist, Evan J., Hanson, Russell L., and Klarner, Carl. 2010. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States: A Re-Appraisal.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 10:117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960-93.” American Journal of Political Science 42:327–348. Revised 1960-2013 Citizen Ideology Series.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C., and Owens, Ryan J.. 2012. The Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court: Executive Branch Influence and Judicial Decisions. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Christenson, Dino P.. 2015. “Comparing Membership Interest Group Networks across Space and Time, Size, Issue and Industry.” Network Science 3 (1): 78–97.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
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R.. 1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 82 (4):1109–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casillas, Christopher J., Enns, Peter K., and Wohlfarth, Patrick C.. 2010. “How Public Opinion Constrains the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (1): 74–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Tom. 2009. “The Separation of Powers, Court Curbing, and Judicial Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (4): 971–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, Cornell W. 1994. “Law, Politics, and the New Federalism: State Attorneys General as National Policymakers.” The Review of Politics 56 (3): 525–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, Cornell W., and McGuire, Jack. 2001. “State Litigation Strategies and Policymaking in the U.S. Supreme Court.” Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy 11 (1): 17–34.Google Scholar
Collins, Paul M. 2007a. “Lobbyists Before the US Supreme Court: Investigating the Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (1): 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr. 2007b. “Towards an Integrated Model of the U.S. Supreme Court's Federalism Decision Making.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 37 (4): 505–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr. 2008a. “Amicus Curiae and Dissensus on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 5 (1): 143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr. 2008b. Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board 553 U.S. 181 (2008).Google Scholar
Devins, Neal, and Prakash, Saikrishna Bangalore. 2015. “Fifty States, Fifty Attorneys General, and Fifty Approaches to the Duty to Defend.” The Yale Law Journal 124 (6): 2100–2187.Google Scholar
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow 542 U.S. 1 (2004).Google Scholar
Ennis, Bruce J. 1984. “Symposium on Supreme Court Advocacy: Effective Amicus Briefs.” Catholic University Law Review 33:603–609.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Knight, Jack. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Knight, Jack. 1999. “Mapping Out the Strategic Terrain: The Informational Role of Amici Curiae.” In Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutional Approaches, eds., Clayton, Cornell W., and Gillman, Howard. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 225–228.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Martin, Andrew D.. 2010. “Does Public Opinion Influence the Supreme Court? Possibly Yes (But We're Not Sure Why).” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 13:263–281.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Martin, Andrew D., Segal, Jeffrey A., and Westerland, Chad. 2007. “The Judicial Common Space.” The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 23:303–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and O'Connor, Karen. 1988. “States and the U.S. Supreme Court: An Examination of Litigation Outcomes.” Social Science Quarterly 69 (3): 660–674.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey A., and Johnson, Timothy. 1996. “The Claim of Issue Creation on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 90:845–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew. 2009. Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, Edward L., and Ward, Bryce A.. 2006. “Myths and Realities of American Political Geography.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 20 (2): 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleason, Shane A. 2018. “The Dynamics of Legal Networks: State Attorney General Amicus Brief Coalition Formation.” Justice System Journal 39 (3): 253–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleason, Shane A., and Provost, Colin. 2016. “Representing the States Before the U.S. Supreme Court: State Amicus Brief Participation, the Policy-making Environment, and the Fourth Amendment.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 46 (2): 248–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goelzhauser, Greg, and Vouvalis, Nicole. 2015. “Amicus Coalition Heterogeneity and Signaling Credibility in Supreme Court Agenda Setting.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 45 (1): 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003).Google Scholar
Hall, Matthew E. K. 2014. “The Semi-Constrained Court: Public Opinion, the Separation of Powers, and the U.S. Supreme Court's Fear of Nonimplementation.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (2): 352–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansford, Thomas G. 2004. “Information Provision, Organizational Constraints, and the Decision to Submit and Amicus Curiae Brief in a U.S. Supreme Court Case.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (2): 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansford, Thomas G., Depaoli, Sarah, and Canelo, Kayla S.. 2016. “Estimating the Ideal Points of Organized Interests in Legal Policy Space.” Presented at: 2016 Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association; June 2–5; New Orleans.Google Scholar
Hansford, Thomas G., and Johnson, Kristen. 2014. “The Supply of Amicus Curiae Briefs in the Market for Information at the U. S. Supreme Court.” Justice System Journal 35 (4): 362–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, Brandon D. 2014. “The Effectiveness of State-Filed Amicus Briefs at the United States Supreme Court.” Journal of Constitutional Law 16 (5): 1503–1529.Google Scholar
Heaney, Michael T., and Leifeld, Philip. 2018. “Contributions by Interest Groups to Lobbying Coalitions.” The Journal of Politics 80 (2): 494–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Robert. 1962. “The Sectional Impact of Judicial Review.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Hula, Kevin W. 1999. Lobbying Together: Interest Group Coalitions in Legislative Politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., Spriggs, James F. II, and Wahlbeck, Paul J.. 2007. “Oral Advocacy Before the United States Supreme Court: Does It Affect the Justices' Decisions?” Washington University Law Review 85 (3): 457–527.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., Wahlbeck, Paul J., and Spriggs, James F. II. 2006. “The Influence of Oral Arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 100 (1): 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearney, Joseph D., and Merrill, Thomas W.. 2000. “The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148 (3): 743–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearney, Richard C., and Sheehan, Reginal S.. 1992. “Supreme Court Decision Making: The Impact of Court Composition on State and Local Government Litigation.” The Journal of Politics 54 (4): 1008–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, Geoffrey. n.d. “Prioritized Interests: Diverse Lobbying Coalitions and Congressional Committee Agenda-Setting.” The Journal of Politics. doi: 10.1086/705744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Kelly J. 2004. “Best Friends? Supreme Court Law Clerks on Effective Amicus Curiae Briefs.” Journal of Law and Politics 20 (1): 33–75.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, Spriggs, James F. II, and Wahlbeck, Paul J.. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T., and Stimson, James A.. 2004. “The Least Dangerous Branch Revisited: New Evidence on Supreme Court Responsiveness to Public Preferences.” The Journal of Politics 66 (4): 1018–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, Thomas R. 1987. “States Before the U.S. Supreme Court: State Attorneys General as Amicus Curiae.” Judicature 70:298–306.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nicholson-Crotty, Sean. 2007. “State Merit Amicus Participation and Federalism Outcomes in the U.S. Supreme Court.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism. 37 (4): 599–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolette, Paul. 2014. “State Litigation during the Obama Administration: Diverging Agendas in an Era of Polarized Politics.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 44 (3): 451–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolette, Paul. 2015. Federalism on Trial: State Attorneys General and National Policymaking in Contemporary America. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Nolette, Paul, and Provost, Colin. 2018. “Change and Continuity in the Role of State Attorneys General in the Obama and Trump Administrations.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 48 (3): 469–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacelle, Richard L. 1991. The Transformation of the Supreme Court's Agenda. San Francisco: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Parker, Christopher M. 2011. “Ideological Voting in Supreme Court Federalism Cases, 19532007.” Justice System Journal 32 (2): 206–234.Google Scholar
Phinney, Robin. 2017. Strange Bedfellows: Interest Group Coalitions, Diverse Partners, and Influence in American Social Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provost, Colin. 2003. “State Attorneys General, Entrepreneurship, and Consumer Protection in the New Federalism.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 33 (2): 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provost, Colin. 2006. “The Politics of Consumer Protection: Explaining State Attorney General Participation in Multi-State Lawsuits.” Political Research Quarterly 59 (4): 608–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provost, Colin. 2011. “When to Befriend the Court? Examining State Amici Curiae Participation Before the United States Supreme Court.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 11 (1): 4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rentfrow, Peter Jason. 2010. “Statewide Differences in Personality: Toward a Psychological Geography of the United States.” Psychologist 65 (6): 548–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rush, Sharon E. 2014. “Federalism, Diversity, Equality, and Article III Judges: Geography, Identity, and Bias.” Missouri Law Review 79:119.Google Scholar
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe 530 U.S. 290 (2000).Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder 570 U.S. 529 (2013).Google Scholar
Solimine, Michael E. 2012. “State Amici, Collective Action, and the Development of Federalism Doctrine.” Georgia Law Review 46:355–406.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., and Sheehan, Reginald S.. 1993. “Interest Group Success in the Courts: Seizure Cases, 1962-1981.” American Journal of Political Science 78 (4): 891–900.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J., Epstein, Lee, Martin, Andrew D., Segal, Jeffrey A., Ruger, Theodore J., and Benesh, Sara C.. 2016. “Supreme Court Database, Version 2016 Release 01.”.Google Scholar
Spriggs, James F., and Wahlbeck, Paul J.. 1997. “Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 50:365–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tam Cho, Wendy K., Gimpel, James G., and Hui, Iris S.. 2012. “Voter Migration and the Geographic Sorting of the American Electorate.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103 (4): 856–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1978. “Selecting Cases for Supreme Court Review: An Underdog Model.” American Political Science Review 72:902–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltenburg, Eric N., and Swinford, Bill. 1999. Litigating Federalism: The States before the U.S. Supreme Court. Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Canelo supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Canelo supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 820.2 KB