Interest Group Success in the Courts: Amicus Participation in the Supreme Court

Abstract

Over the past two decades there has been a rapid increase in the number of amicus curiae briefs filed in the Supreme Court. Some cases studied suggest that these briefs may have a substantial effect on the Supreme Court's decisions, but no systematic studies have examined the efficacy of such briefs. The present study utilizes a precision matching strategy to determine if litigants supported by amici have a greater chance of success in the Supreme Court than comparable litigants in matched pairs who have no amicus support. The analysis uncovers no evidence that support from amici substantially increases the chance of success of the supported litigants.In a recent study, Epstein and Rowland examine what they believe is a widespread myth that interest groups are &dquo;intrepid litigators&dquo; that rarely lose to nongroup adversaries ( 1991: 206). To test this conventional wisdom, Epstein and Rowland examine the effects of interest group sponsorship of cases decided by published decisions of the federal district courts over a twelveyear period. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, they find that there are negligible differences in the success rates of group and nongroup litigants.But sponsorship of litigation in the trial courts is only one of the ways in which groups participate in the litigation process. Groups also participate by filing amicus curiae briefs with appellate courts, especially the Supreme Court of the United States. The present study adopts a research strategy similar to that employed by Epstein and Rowland to determine whether the conventional wisdom on the success of groups in litigation has a stronger empirical basis in the amicus activity of groups than in their sponsorship of cases.Over the past two decades there has been a marked increase in the number of amicus briefs filed in cases heard by the Supreme Court (Bradley 1 In the Supreme Court, groups participate more frequently as amicus curiae than as sponsors of litigation (Epstein 1991: 358).

The Consistency of Judicial Choice

“…By introducing issues or expanding on issues the direct litigants were only able to make in abbreviated form, amici make it difficult for the justices to determine what the correct application of the law is in each case. Further, recent research indicates that amicus briefs have a significant impact on the justices' decision making (Collins 2004a;Kearney and Merrill 2000; but see Songer and Sheehan 1993) and that this influence is not dependant upon the congruence of the information in the brief with the policy preferences of the justices (Collins 2005). By influencing judicial decision makingregardless of whether the justices are predisposed to agree with the information presented in the briefs -amicus briefs serve to attenuate the justices' attitudinal voting behavior.…”

When Organizations Rule: Judicial Deference to Institutionalized Employment Structures

“…A good deal of political science and some legal scholarship points to forms of upward influence of organizations on law through lobbying and capture (Stigler 1971;Hawkins 1984;Burstein 1985;Ayres & Braithwaite 1991;Blumrosen 1993;Leech et al 2002;Kamieniecki 2006) or through amicus briefs designed to influence judicial thinking (Krislov 1963;Spriggs and Wahlbeck 1997;Songer and Sheehan 1993;Hansford 2004;Collins 2004). These studies, however, generally focus on organizations' strategic efforts to influence law-making bodies.…”

The Institutional Sources of State Success in Federalism Litigation before the Supreme Court

“…8. Much research has been done assessing the impact of amicus curiae briefs on influencing the Court's agenda and decision making (e.g., Caldeira & Wright 1990;Epstein & Knight 1999;Kearney & Merrill 2000;McGuire 1994;O'Connor & Epstein 1981-82;Songer & Sheehan 1993). The filing of amicus briefs, apart from the quality or persuasiveness of the arguments presented in them, gives justices a clear sense of the social and political interests at stake in the litigation (Caldeira & Wright 1988:1111.…”