Friends with benefits: Case significance, amicus curiae, and agenda setting on the U.S. Supreme Court

Schoenherr, Jessica A.; Black, Ryan C.

doi:10.1016/j.irle.2018.12.009

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Caldeira and Wright (1990) additionally demonstrates that a dissent in the court below increases the likelihood of a cert grant, though not if the analysis is limited to discussed cases. The effects of these "standard factors" have been confirmed repeatedly in subsequent research, some based on justice-vote level data (see in particular Schoenherr and Black (2019), but also, e.g., Black and Boyd (2012b), Black and Owens (2009, 2012), and McGuire and Caldeira (1993).…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 60%

Justice-level heterogeneity in certiorari voting: US Supreme Court October terms 1939, 1968, and 1982

Caldeira

Lempert

2021

PSRM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the literature on US Supreme Court agenda-setting is sizable, justice-vote-level multivariate analyses of certiorari are almost exclusively limited to samples of discussed cases from 1986 to 1993. Moreover, these studies have done very little to explore justice-level heterogeneity on certiorari. Here, we address these lacunae by analyzing the predictors of individual justices’ cert votes on all paid cases from the 1939, 1968, and 1982 terms. We find substantial justice-level heterogeneity in the weight that justices place on the standard set of forces shaping the cert vote. We also show that some of this heterogeneity is associated with justices’ experience and ideological extremism, largely in theoretically predicted ways. In closing, we sound a note of caution on drawing conclusions about effects of justice attributes, when the number of justices is relatively small.

show abstract

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 60%

Justice-level heterogeneity in certiorari voting: US Supreme Court October terms 1939, 1968, and 1982

Caldeira

Lempert

2021

PSRM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If we switch our focus to the cert stage, Caldeira and Wright’s (1988) seminal article showed that the filing of amicus briefs at the cert stage is associated with a significantly higher likelihood of the Court granting cert in a given case. In their telling, “amicus curiae participation by organized interests provides information, or signals—otherwise largely unavailable—about the political, social, and economic significance of cases on the Supreme Court’s paid docket and that justices make inferences about the potential impact of their decisions by observing the extent of amicus activity.” While Caldeira and Wright’s paper focused on a single term (1982), follow-up work by Schoenherr and Black (2019) confirms the general relationship between amicus briefs and cert. However, as with merits briefs, the extent to which this relationship is causal remains unclear.…”

Section: The Revolving Door Agenda Setting and Former Clerksmentioning

confidence: 92%

The Revolving Door in Judicial Politics: Former Clerks and Agenda Setting on the U.S. Supreme Court

Liu

Kastellec

2022

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the role of former clerks to Supreme Court justices on the Court’s agenda setting process. We find that when a former clerk is the attorney on either a cert petition or an amicus brief, the Court is more likely to hear a case, compared to advocacy by a non-former clerk. To help explain these patterns, we draw on the broader literature on “revolving door” politics. We argue that the most plausible mechanisms are either that former clerks are more effective advocates or that their presence in a case signals its importance to the Court. Alternatively, former clerks may select into cases that the Court is likely to grant. While we cannot definitively disentangle these competing mechanisms, the strong patterns in the data suggest that the importance of the revolving door in judicial politics extends broadly into the domain of agenda setting and is thus worthy of further investigation.

show abstract

Confessions at the Supreme Court: Judicial Response to Solicitor General Error

Schoenherr

Waterbury

2022

J. law courts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the chief litigator for the US government, the solicitor general plays a crucial role in the Supreme Court decision-making process. The justices and solicitor general share a mutually beneficial relationship that is reinforced by the solicitor general’s willingness to provide legal advice when asked. In this article, we examine whether and how this relationship changes when the solicitor general files a formal “confession of error.” Using data on confessions filed between the 1979 and 2014 terms, we find the justices are significantly less likely to support the solicitor general’s position at multiple stages of the Court’s decision-making process if the solicitor general confesses error in light of a policy change. This punishment is harshest when the solicitor general provides advice as an amicus curiae participant, but it is only temporary. These results provide new insight into the scope and limitations of benefits allotted to the Court’s “tenth justice.”

show abstract

Friends with benefits: Case significance, amicus curiae, and agenda setting on the U.S. Supreme Court

Cited by 3 publications

References 27 publications

Justice-level heterogeneity in certiorari voting: US Supreme Court October terms 1939, 1968, and 1982

Justice-level heterogeneity in certiorari voting: US Supreme Court October terms 1939, 1968, and 1982

The Revolving Door in Judicial Politics: Former Clerks and Agenda Setting on the U.S. Supreme Court

Confessions at the Supreme Court: Judicial Response to Solicitor General Error

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About