Despite the fact that amicus curiae participation is the most common method of interest group activity in the judicial arena, there is little consensus as to whether this means of participation influences the decision making of the U.S. Supreme Court. To redress this state of affairs, this research investigates the affect of amicus briefs on the ideological direction of the Court's decisions, with particular attention given to theoretical and methodological issues that have gone unexplored in previous studies. Analyzing group influence during the 1946 to 1995 terms, the results provide particularly robust evidence that pressure groups are effective in shaping the Court's policy outputs. These findings therefore indicate that elite decision makers can be influenced by persuasive argumentation presented by organized interests.
Bailey, Michael A., Brian Kamoie, and Forrest Maltzman. 2005. Signals from the tenth justice: The political role of the solicitor general in Supreme Court decision making. American Journal of Political Science49 (1): 72-85.
2.
Banner, Stuart. 2003. The myth of the neutral amicus: American courts and their friends, 1790-1890. Constitutional Commentary20 (1): 131-150.
3.
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Beth L. Leech. 1998. Basic interests: The importance of groups in politics and in political science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
Beck, Nathaniel, Jonathan N. Katz, and Richard Tucker. 1998. Taking time seriously: Time-series-cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable. American Journal of Political Science42 (4): 1260-1288.
5.
Behuniak-Long, Susan. 1991. Friendly fire: Amici curiae and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. Judicature74 (5): 261-270.
6.
Benoit, William L.1989. Attorney argumentation and Supreme Court opinions. Argumentation and Advocacy26 (Summer): 22-38.
7.
Birkby, Robert H., and Walter F. Murphy. 1964. Interest group conflict in the judicial arena: The First Amendment and group access to the courts. Texas Law Review42 (7): 1018-1048.
8.
Brambor, Thomas, William Roberts Clark, and Matt Golder. 2006. Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis14 (1): 63-82.
9.
Brenner, Saul, and Theodore S. Arrington. 2002. Measuring salience on the Supreme Court: A research note. Jurimetrics43 (Fall): 99-113.
10.
Breyer, Stephen. 1998. The interdependence of science and law. Judicature82 (1): 24-27.
11.
Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright. 1988. Organized interests and agenda setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review82 (4): 1109-1127.
12.
Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright. 1990. Amici curiae before the Supreme Court: Who participates, when, and how much?Journal of Politics52 (3): 782-806.
13.
Calder, Bobby J., Chester A. Insko, and Ben Yandell. 1974. The relation of cognitive and memorial processes to persuasion in a simulated jury trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology4 (1): 62-93.
14.
Canon, Bradley C.1973. Reactions of state supreme Courts to a U.S. Supreme Court civil liberties decision. Law and Society Review8 (1): 109-134.
15.
Chaiken, Shelly. 1980. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39 (5): 752-766.
16.
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 Review38 (4): 807-832.
17.
Deen, Rebecca E., Joseph Ignagni, and James Meernik. 2003. The solicitor general as amicus, 1953-2000: How influential?Judicature87 (2): 60-71.
18.
Douglas, William O. 1962. Transcriptions of conversations between Justice William O. Douglas and Professor Walter F. Murphy. Cassette Number 9: May 23, 1962. On file with the Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/finding_aids/douglas/.
19.
Epstein, Lee. 1985. Conservatives in court. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
20.
Epstein, Lee. 1993. Interest group litigation during the Rehnquist Court era. Journal of Law and Politics9 (4): 639-717.
21.
Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 1998. The choices justices make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
22.
Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 1999. Mapping out the strategic terrain: The informational role of amici curiae. In Supreme Court decision making: New institutionalist approaches, ed. Cornell W. Clayton and Howard Gillman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Epstein, Lee, and Joseph F. Kobylka. 1992. The Supreme Court and legal change: Abortion and the death penalty. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
24.
Epstein, Lee, and C. K. Rowland. 1991. Debunking the myth of interest group invincibility in the courts. American Political Science Review85 (1): 205-217.
25.
Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2000. Measuring issue salience. American Journal of Political Science44 (1): 66-83.
26.
Galanter, Marc. 1974. Why the “haves” come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law and Society Review9 (1): 95-160.
27.
Gill, Jeff. 1999. The insignificance of null hypothesis significance testing. Political Research Quarterly52 (3): 647-674.
28.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244-244 (2003).
29.
Greene, William H.2000. Econometric analysis. 4th ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
30.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306-306 (2003).
31.
Hansford, Thomas G.2004a. Information provision, organizational constraints, and the decision to submit an amicus curiae brief in a U.S. Supreme Court case. Political Research Quarterly57 (2): 219-230.
32.
Hansford, Thomas G.2004b. Lobbying strategies, venue selection, and organized interest involvement at the U.S. Supreme Court. American Politics Research32 (2): 170-197.
33.
Harper, Fowler V., and Edwin D. Etherington. 1953. Lobbyists before the Court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review101 (8): 1173-1177.
34.
Hassler, Gregory L., and Karen O'Connor. 1986. Woodsy witch-doctors versus judicial guerrillas: The role and impact of competing interest groups in environmental litigation. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review13 (4): 487-520.
35.
Heberlig, Eric, and Rorie Spill. 2000. Congress at the Court: Members of Congress as amici curiae. Southeastern Political Review28 (2): 189-212.
36.
Hedman, Susan. 1991. Friends of the earth and friends of the Court: Assessing the impact of interest group amici curiae in environmental cases decided by the Supreme Court. Virginia Environmental Law Journal10 (2): 187-212.
37.
Insko, Chester A., E. Allan Lind, and Stephen LaTour. 1976. Persuasion, recall, and thoughts. Representative Research in Social Psychology7 (1): 66-78.
38.
Ivers, Gregg, and Karen O'Connor. 1987. Friends as foes: The amicus curiae participation and effectiveness of the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans for Effective Law Enforcement in criminal cases, 1969-1982. Law and Policy9 (2): 161-178.
39.
Johnson, Timothy R., and Matthew M. C. Roberts. 2003. Oral arguments, amici curiae, and the attitudinal model. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
40.
Johnson, Timothy R., Paul J. Wahlbeck, and James F. Spriggs II. 2006. The influence of oral arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review100 (1): 99-113.
41.
Kearney, Joseph D., and Thomas W. Merrill. 2000. The influence of amicus curiae briefs on the Supreme Court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review148 (3): 743-853.
42.
Kolbert, Kathryn. 1989. The Webster amicus curiae briefs: Perspectives on the abortion controversy and the role of the Supreme Court. American Journal of Law and Medicine15 (2): 153-168.
43.
Koshner, Andrew Jay. 1998. Solving the puzzle of interest group litigation. Westport, CT: Praeger.
44.
Krislov, Samuel. 1963. The amicus curiae brief: From friendship to advocacy. Yale Law Journal72 (4): 694-721.
45.
Lindquist, Stefanie A., and David E. Klein. 2006. The influence of jurisprudential considerations on Supreme Court decision making: A study of conflict cases. Law and Society Review40 (1): 135-161.
46.
Lynch, Kelly J.2004. Best friends? Supreme Court law clerks on effective amicus curiae briefs. Journal of Law and Politics20 (1): 33-75.
47.
Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2000. Crafting law on the Supreme Court: The collegial game. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
Martin, Andrew D., and Kevin M. Quinn. 2002. Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999. Political Analysis10 (2): 134-153.
49.
Martinek, Wendy L.2006. Amici curiae in the U.S. courts of appeals. American Politics Research34 (6): 803-824.
50.
McGuire, Kevin T.1990. Obscenity, libertarian values, and decision making in the Supreme Court. American Politics Quarterly18 (1): 47-67.
51.
McGuire, Kevin T.1993. The Supreme Court bar: Legal elites in the Washington community. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
52.
McGuire, Kevin T.1995. Repeat players in the Supreme Court: The role of experienced lawyers in litigation success. Journal of Politics57 (1): 187-196.
53.
McGuire, Kevin T.2002. Understanding the U.S. Supreme Court: Cases and controversies. New York: McGraw-Hill.
54.
McLauchlan, Judithanne Scourfield. 2005. Congressional participation as amicus curiae before the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
55.
Moe, Terry M.1980. The organization of interests: Incentives and the internal dynamics of political interest groups. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
56.
Morris, Thomas R.1987. States before the U.S. Supreme Court: State attorneys general as amicus curiae. Judicature70 (5): 298-305.
57.
Murphy, Walter F.1964. Elements of judicial strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
58.
Norton, Edward C., Hua Wang, and Chunrong Ai.2004. Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. The Stata Journal4 (2): 154-167.
59.
O'Connor, Karen. 1983. The amicus curiae role of the U.S. solicitor general in Supreme Court litigation. Judicature66 (5): 256-264.
60.
O'Connor, Karen, and Lee Epstein. 1982. The importance of interest group involvement in employment discrimination litigation. Howard Law Journal25 (4): 709-729.
61.
O'Connor, Karen, and Lee Epstein. 1983. Court rules and workload: A case study of rules governing amicus curiae participation. Justice System Journal8 (1): 35-45.
62.
O'Connor, Sandra Day. 1996. Henry Clay and the Supreme Court. Speech delivered to the Henry Clay Memorial Foundation, October 4. http://www.henryclay.org/sc.htm.
63.
Pacelle, Richard. 1991. The transformation of the Supreme Court's agenda: From the New Deal to the Reagan administration. Boulder, CO: Westview.
64.
Parker, Frederick R.1999. Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill: An analysis of the amicus curiae briefs and the Supreme Court's majority and concurring opinions. Saint Louis University Law Journal43 (2): 469-542.
65.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265-265 (1978).
66.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113-113 (1973).
67.
Rushin, Robert, and Karen O'Connor. 1987. Judicial lobbying: Interest groups, the Supreme Court, and issues of freedom of expression and speech. Southeastern Political Review15(1): 47-65.
68.
Rustad, Michael, and Thomas Koenig. 1993. The Supreme Court and junk social science: Selective distortion in amicus briefs. North Carolina Law Review72 (1): 91-162.
69.
Salisbury, Robert H.1984. Interest representation: The dominance of institutions. American Political Science Review78 (1): 64-76.
70.
Samuels, Suzanne Uttaro. 2004. First among friends: Interest groups, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the right to privacy. Westport, CT: Praeger.
71.
Schubert, James N., Steven A. Peterson, Glendon Schubert, and Stephen Wasby. 1992. Observing Supreme Court oral argument: A biosocial approach. Politics and the Life Sciences11 (February): 35-51.
72.
Segal, Jeffrey A.1986. Supreme Court justices as human decision makers: An individual-level analysis of the search and seizure cases. Journal of Politics48 (4): 938-955.
73.
Segal, Jeffrey A., Lee Epstein, Charles M. Cameron, and Harold J. Spaeth. 1995. Ideological values and the votes of U.S. Supreme Court justices revisited. Journal of Politics57 (3): 812-823.
74.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1993. The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
75.
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 Review86 (2): 464-471.
76.
Songer, Donald R., and Ashlyn Kuersten. 1995. The success of amici in state supreme courts. Political Research Quarterly48 (1): 31-42.
77.
Songer, Donald R., Jeffrey A. Segal, and Charles M. Cameron. 1994. The hierarchy of justice: Testing a principal-agent model of Supreme Court–Circuit Court interactions. American Journal of Political Science38 (3): 673-696.
78.
Songer, Donald R., and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1990. Supreme Court impact on compliance and outcomes:Miranda and New York Times in the United States courts of appeals. Western Political Quarterly43 (2): 297-316.
79.
Songer, Donald R., and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1993. Interest group success in the courts: Amicus participation in the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly46 (2): 339-354.
80.
Spaeth, Harold J.2002. The Vinson-Warren Supreme Court judicial database, 1946-1968 terms. East Lansing: Department of Political Science, Michigan State University. http://www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/sctdata.htm.
81.
Spaeth, Harold J.2003. The original United States Supreme Court database, 1953-2001 terms. East Lansing: Department of Political Science, Michigan State University. http://www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/sctdata.htm.
82.
Spaeth, Harold J., and Jeffrey A. Segal. 1999. Majority rule or minority will: Adherence to precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
83.
Spriggs, James F., II. 1996. The Supreme Court and federal administrative agencies: A resource-based theory and analysis of judicial impact. American Journal of Political Science40 (4): 1122-1151.
84.
Spriggs, James F., II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 1997. Amicus curiae and the role of information at the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly50 (2): 365-386.
85.
Stern, Robert L., Eugene Gressman, Stephen M. Shapiro, and Kenneth S. Geller. 2002. Supreme Court practice: For practice in the Supreme Court of the United States. 8th ed.Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
Unah, Isaac, and Ange-Marie Hancock. 2006. U.S. Supreme Court decision making, case salience, and the attitudinal model. Law and Policy28 (3): 295-320.
89.
Vigilante, Katherine O'Harra, Virginia Hettinger, and Christopher Zorn. 2001. Legal arguments and Supreme Court decision making: An experimental approach. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
90.
Vose, Clement. 1955. NAACP strategy in the covenant cases. Western Reserve Law Review6 (2): 101-145.
91.
Vose, Clement. 1958. Litigation as a form of pressure group activity. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science319 (September): 20-31.
92.
Vose, Clement. 1959. Caucasians only: The Supreme Court, the N.A.A.C.P., and the restrictive covenant cases. Berkeley: University of California Press.
93.
Walker, Thomas G., and Lee Epstein. 1993. The Supreme Court of the United States: An introduction. New York: St. Martin's.
94.
Wasby, Stephen L.1995. Race relations litigation in an age of complexity. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
95.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490-490 (1989).
