Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T03:41:02.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When to Befriend the Court? Examining State Amici Curiae Participation Before the U.S. Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Colin Provost
Colin Provost*
Affiliation:
University College, London, UK
*
Colin Provost, University College London, School of Public Policy/Department of Political Science, 29/30 Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9QU, United Kingdom Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Over the past 30 years, the U.S. states have increased their participation as amici curiae significantly, in addition to winning more of their cases as direct parties. However, little attention has been paid to the factors that cause amici participation rates to vary among the states. The author examines the decision of state attorneys general (AGs) to initiate or join amicus curiae briefs in all 253 U.S. Supreme Court criminal procedure cases from 1990 through 2001. He hypothesizes that AGs are motivated largely by their own policy preferences and by their motivation to get reelected. Because amicus briefs are not particularly high-profile policy tools, reelection motivations ought to be demonstrated through responsiveness to elites in state government. The findings provide less support for this idea and more support for the idea that state AGs follow their own policy preferences through amicus participation.

Keywords

attorney generalmultistate lawsuitconsumer protectioncompetition lawstate regulation
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 4 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2011

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

Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico. 1982. 458 U.S. 592.Google Scholar
Baker, Stewart A., and Asperger, James R.. 1982. “Foreword: Toward a Center for State and Local Legal Advocacy.” Catholic University Law Review 31:367–73.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R.. 1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 82:1109–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R.. 1990. “Amici Curiae before the Supreme Court: Who Participates, When, and How Much?” The Journal of Politics 52:782–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, Cornell W. 1994. “Law, Politics and the New Federalism: State Attorneys General as National Policymakers.” Review of Politics 56:525–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, Cornell W., and McGuire, Jack. 2001. “State Litigation Strategies and Policymaking in the U.S. Supreme Court.” Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy 11:17–35.Google Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr. 2004. “Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation.” Law and Society Review 38:807–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conlan, Timothy J. 1991. “And the Beat Goes On: Intergovernmental Mandates and Preemption in an Era of Deregulation.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 21:43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davids, Justin G. 2005. “State Attorneys General and the Client-Attorney Relationship: Establishing the Power to Sue State Officers.” Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 38:365–414.Google Scholar
Ennis, Bruce L. 1984. “Effective Amicus Briefs.” Catholic University Law Review 33:603–9.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 90:845–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey A., Spaeth, Harold J., and Walker, Thomas G.. 2003. The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions and Developments. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Gideon v. Wainwright. 1962. 372 U.S. 335.Google Scholar
Gormley, William T. Jr. 1983. “Policy, Politics and Public Utility Regulation.” American Journal of Political Science 27:86–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansford, Thomas G. 2004. “Information Provision, Organizational Constraints and the Decision to File an Amicus Brief in a U.S. Supreme Court Case.” Political Research Quarterly 57:219–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, A. E. Dick. 1982. “The States and the Supreme Court.” Catholic University Law Review 31:375–438.Google Scholar
Kearney, Joseph D., and Merrill, Thomas W.. 2000. “The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148:743–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearney, Richard C., and Sheehan, Reginald S.. 1992. “Supreme Court Decision-Making: The Impact of Court Composition on State and Local Government Litigation.” Journal of Politics 54:1008–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kincaid, John. 1990. “From Cooperative to Coercive Federalism.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 509:139–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, and Zeng, Langche. 2001. “Explaining Rare Events in International Relations.” International Organization 55:693–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinek, Wendy L. 2006. “Amicus Curiae in the United States Courts of Appeals.” American Politics Research 34:803–24.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
O'Brien, David M. 1995. Constitutional Law and Politics, Volume 1: Struggles for Power and Governmental Accountability. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen. 1983. “The Amicus Curiae Role of the U.S. Solicitor General in Supreme Court Litigation.” Judicature 66:256–64.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen, and Epstein, Lee. 1983. “Court Rules and Workload: A Case Study of Rules Governing Amicus Curiae Participation.” Justice System Journal 8:35–45.Google Scholar
Palmer, Jan. 1982. “An Econometric Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions.” Public Choice 39:387–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchett, C. Herman. 1948. The Roosevelt Court. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provine, Doris. 1980. Case Selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Provost, Colin. 2003. “State Attorneys General, Entrepreneurship, and Consumer Protection in the New Federalism.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 33:37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provost, Colin. 2006. “The Politics of Consumer Protection: Explaining State Attorney General Participation in Multi-State Lawsuits.” Political Research Quarterly 59:609–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provost, Colin. 2010. “An Integrated Model of U.S. State Attorney General Behavior in Multi-State Litigation.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 10:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, David W., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Ross, Lynne, ed. 1990. State Attorneys General: Powers and Responsibilities. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.Google Scholar
Salokar, Rebecca M. 1987. “The Solicitor General before the Supreme Court, 1959–1982: A Descriptive Analysis.” Presented at the 1987 Meeting of the Law and Society Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, Daniel. 2004. “Preemption in the Rehnquist Court.” Presented at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC. http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.781/event_detail.asp.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1988. “Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General during the Warren and Burger Courts.” Western Political Quarterly 41:135–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Reedy, Cheryl D.. 1988. “The Supreme Court and Sex Discrimination: The Role of the Solicitor General.” Western Political Quarterly 41:553–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solberg, Rorie Spill, and Ray, Leonard. 2005. “Capacity, Attitudes and Case Attributes: The Differential Success of the States before the United States Courts of Appeals.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 5:147–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R. 1979. “Concern for Policy Outputs as a Cue for Supreme Court Decisions on Certiorari.” The Journal of Politics 41:1185–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., and Haire, Susan. 1992. “Integrating Alternative Approaches to the Study of Judicial Voting: Obscenity Cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political Science 36:963–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., and Sheehan, Reginald S.. 1993. “Interest Group Success in the Courts: Amicus Participation in the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 46:339–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spill, Rorie L., Licari, Michael J., and Ray, Leonard. 2001. “Taking on Tobacco: Policy Entrepreneurship and the Tobacco Litigation.” Political Research Quarterly 54:605–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spriggs, James F. II, and Wahlbeck, Paul J.. 1997. “Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information on the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 50:365–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
State of Florida ex rel. Shevin v. Exxon Corp. 1976. 526 F.2d 266 (5th Circuit).Google Scholar
Swinerton, E. Nelson. 1968. “Ambition and American State Executives.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 12:538–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, Joseph, Schick, Marvin, Muraskin, Matthew, and Rosen, Daniel. 1963. “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Jurisdiction: Cue Theory.” In Judicial Decision Making, ed. Schubert, Glendon. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 111–32.Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1972. “The Decision to Grant Certiorari as an Indicator to Decision ‘on the Merits.‘” Polity 4:429–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1984. “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a Predictive Variable.” American Political Science Review 78:901–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney, and Willison, David. 1985. “The Solicitor General as Amicus Curiae in the Supreme Court, 1969–1983 Terms.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Waltenburg, Eric N., and Swinford, Bill. 1999. Litigating Federalism: The States before the U.S. Supreme Court. Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Worden, Alison. 1990. “Policy Making by Prosecutors: The Uses of Discretion in Regulating Plea Bargaining.” Judicature 73:335–40.Google Scholar
Zorn, Christopher. 2001. “Generalized Estimating Equation Models for Correlated Data: A Review with Applications.” American Journal of Political Science 45:470–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Provost supplementary material

DS

Download Provost supplementary material(File)
File 293.3 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Provost supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Provost supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 29.7 KB