Do Solicitors General (SGs) influence how justices vote? Years of scholarship suggests that the answer is yes but has largely failed to examine what influence means and just how much influence the SG wields. The authors examine SG influence during the Court’s agenda-setting stage. They find, first, that justices follow SG recommendations even when they are completely opposed to them and, second, that law exerts a strong independent influence. Justices are significantly less likely to follow SG recommendations that contravene important legal factors.
BaileyMichael A.KamoieBrianMaltzmanForrest. 2005. Signals from the tenth justice: The political role of the solicitor general in Supreme Court decision making. American Journal of Political Science49:72-85.
2.
BaumLawrence. 2007. The Supreme Court. 9th ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
3.
BerryWilliam D.DeMerittJacqueline H. R.EsareyJustin. 2010. Testing for interaction in binary logit and probit models: Is a product term essential?American Journal of Political Science54:248-66.
4.
BlackRyan C.BoydChristina L.Forthcoming. US Supreme Court agenda setting and the role of litigant status. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization28 (1).
5.
BlackRyan C.OwensRyan J.2009a. Agenda-setting in the Supreme Court: The collision of policy and jurisprudence. Journal of Politics71:1062-75.
6.
BlackRyan C.OwensRyan J.2009b. Analyzing the reliability of Supreme Court justices’ agenda setting records. Justice System Journal30:254-64.
7.
BlalockHubert. 1979. Social statistics. 2nd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill.
8.
BoucherRobert L.Jr.SegalJeffrey A.1995. Supreme Court justices as strategic decision makers: Aggressive grants and defensive denials on the Vinson Court. Journal of Politics57:824-37.
CaldeiraGregory A.WrightJohn R.ZornChristopher J. W.1999. Sophisticated voting and gate-keeping in the Supreme Court. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization15:549-72.
11.
CaplanLincoln. 1988. The tenth justice: The solicitor general and the rule of law. New York: Vintage.
12.
CarrubbaCliffFriedmanBarryMartinAndrewVanbergGeorg. 2007. Does the median justice control the content of Supreme Court opinions?Paper presented at the 2nd annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, New York.
13.
DeenRebeccaIgnagniJosephMeernikJames. 2003. The solicitor general as amicus, 1953–2000: How Influential?Judicature87:60-71.
14.
EpsteinLeeKnightJack. 1998. The choices justices make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
15.
EpsteinLeeMartinAndrew D.SegalJeffrey A.WesterlandChad. 2007. The judicial common space. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization23:303-25.
EpsteinLeeSegalJeffrey A.SpaethHarold J.WalkerThomas G.2007. The Supreme Court compendium: Data, decisions, and developments. 4th ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
18.
EpsteinLeeWalkerThomas G.2005. Constitutional law for a changing America. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
19.
FraleyGeorge. 1996. Is the fox watching the henhouse? The administration’s control of FEC litigation through the solicitor general. Administrative Law Journal of the American University9:1215-72.
20.
GilesMichael W.HettingerVirginia A.PeppersTodd. 2001. Picking federal judges: A note on policy and partisan selection agendas. Political Research Quarterly54:623-41.
21.
HansfordThomas G.SpriggsJames F.II2006. The politics of precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
JohnsonTimothy R.2003. The Supreme Court, the solicitor general, and the separation of powers. American Politics Research31:426-51.
23.
KamCindy D.FranzeseRobert J.Jr.2007. Modeling and interpreting interactive hypotheses in regression analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
24.
KingGaryTomzMichaelWittenbergJason. 2000. Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science44:347-61.
25.
LandisJ. RichardKochGary G.1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics33:159-74.
26.
McGuireKevin T.1998. Explaining executive success in the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly51:505-26.
27.
MeinholdStephen S.ShullSteven A.1998. Policy congruence between the president and solicitor general. Political Research Quarterly51:527-37.
28.
National Organization for Women v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1994).
29.
NicholsonChrisCollinsPaul M.Jr.2008. The solicitor general’s amicus curiae strategies in the Supreme Court. American Politics Research36:382-415.
30.
OwensRyan J.2010. The separation of powers and Supreme Court agenda setting. American Journal of Political Science54:412-27.
31.
PacelleRichard. 2003. Between law and politics: The solicitor general and the structuring of race, gender, and reproductive rights litigation. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
32.
PerryH. W.Jr.1991. Deciding to decide: Agenda setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
SalokarRebecca Mae. 1992. The solicitor general: The politics of law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
34.
SegalJeffrey. 1988. Amicus curiae briefs by the solicitor general during the Warren and Burger Court: A research note. Western Political Quarterly41:135-44.
35.
SegalJeffrey. 1990. Supreme Court support for the solicitor general: The effect of presidential appointments. Western Political Quarterly43:137-52.
36.
SegalJeffrey A.ReedyCheryl D.1988. The Supreme Court and sex discrimination: The role of the solicitor general. Western Political Quarterly41:553-68.
37.
SpaethHarold J.2006. The original United States Supreme Court judicial database 1953–2005 terms. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
38.
SternRobert L.GressmanEugeneShapiroStephen M.GellerKenneth S.2002. Supreme Court practice. 8th ed.Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
39.
WardArtemusWeidenDavid L.2006. Sorcerers’ apprentices: 100 years of law clerks at the United States Supreme Court. New York: New York University Press.
40.
WohlfarthPatrick C.2009. The tenth justice? Consequences of politicization in the solicitor general’s office. Journal of Politics70:224-37.
