Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T12:24:32.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Debunking the Myth of Interest Group Invincibility in the Courts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Lee Epstein  and
C. K. Rowland
Lee Epstein
Affiliation:
Southern Methodist University
C. K. Rowland
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research on interest group litigation has provoked a reevaluation of the conventional wisdom about the study of pressure group activity and judicial politics. Nevertheless, the notion that interest groups are intrepid litigators that rarely lose to nongroup adversaries persists unchallenged and unscathed. We seek to determine if groups are, in fact, as invincible as the literature suggests. Several findings emerge that may undermine conventional wisdom about the relative efficacy of group-sponsored litigation. Most important is that groups are no more likely than nongroups to win, at least in U.S. District Courts. Based on this and other results, we draw a number of conclusions about interest group litigation and the direction into which future study might head.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 85 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 205 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1991 

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

Babbie, Earl. 1986. The Practice of Social Research. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
Baker, Stewart A., and Asperger, James R.. 1982. “Forward: Toward a Center for State and Local Legal Advocacy.” Catholic University Law Review 31:367–73.Google Scholar
Barker, Lucius. 1967. “Third Parties in Litigation: A Systematic View of the Judicial Function.” Journal of Politics 29:41–69.Google Scholar
Berry, Jeffrey. 1989. The Interest Group Society. 2d ed. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R.. 1988. “Interest Groups and Agenda-Setting in the Supreme Court of the United States.” American Political Science Review 82:1109–27.Google Scholar
Casper, Jonathan. 1972. Lawyers before the Warren Court. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Carp, Robert A., and Rowland, C. K.. 1983. Policymaking and Politics in the Federal District Courts. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Cigler, Allan J., and Loomis, Burdett A., eds. 1986. Interest Group Politics. 2d ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Cortner, Richard C. 1968. “Strategies and Tactics of Litigants in Constitutional Cases.” Journal of Public Law 17:287–307.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee. 1985. Conservatives in Court. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and O'Connor, Karen. 1988. “States and the U.S. Supreme Court: An Examination of Litigation Outcomes.” Social Science Quarterly 69:660–74.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculation on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law & Society Review 9:95–160.Google Scholar
Gates, John B. and McIntosh, Wayne V.. 1989. “The Motivations for Interest Group Litigation.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Law & Society Association, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Jack. 1977. Judicial Process and Social Change: Constitutional Litigation. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
Hakman, Nathan. 1969. “The Supreme Court's Political Environment: The Processing of Non-Commercial Litigation.” In Frontiers of Judicial Research, eds. Grossman, Joel B., and Tanenhaus, Joseph. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
James, Bill. 1987. The Bill James Baseball Abstract 1987. New York: Ballatine Books.Google Scholar
Kluger, Richard. 1976. Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black Americans' Struggle for Equality. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
Kobylka, Joseph F. 1987. “A Court-Created Context for Group Litigation: Libertarian Groups and Obscenity.” Journal of Politics 49:1061–78.Google Scholar
Krislov, Samuel. 1963. “The Amicus Curiae Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy.” Yale Law Journal 72:694–721.Google Scholar
Lawrence, Susan E. 1989. “Legal Services before the Supreme Court.” Judicature 72:266–73.Google Scholar
Lawrence, Susan E. 1990. The Poor in Court. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lempert, Richard, and Sanders, Joseph. 1986. An Invitation to Law and Social Science. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Manwaring, David. 1962. Render Unto Caesar: The Flag Salute Controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nachmias, David, and Nachmias, Chava. 1987. Research Methods in the Social Sciences. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Newland, Chester A. 1959. “Legal Periodicals and the Supreme Court.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 3:58–74.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen. 1980. Women's Organizations' Use of the Court. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Olson, Susan. 1984. Clients and Lawyers. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Orren, Karen. 1976. “Standing to Sue: Interest Group Conflict in the Federal Courts.” American Political Science Review 70:723–41.Google Scholar
Puro, Steven. 1971. “The Role of Amicus Curiae in the United States Supreme Court: 1920–1966.” Buffalo, NY: State University of New York. Dissertation.Google Scholar
Rubin, Eva R. 1987. Abortion, Politics, and the Courts. Rev. ed. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Salisbury, Robert H., Heinz, John P., Lauman, Edward O., and Nelson, Robert L.. 1987. “Who Works with Whom?” American Political Science Review 81:1215–34.Google Scholar
Scheingold, Stuart A. 1974. The Politics of Rights. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Tierney, John. 1986. Organized Interests in American Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1984. “Predicting Supreme Court Decisions Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases, 1962–1981.” American Political Science Review 78:891–900.Google Scholar
Sorauf, Frank J. 1976. The Wall of Separation: Constitutional Politics of Church and State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. 1979. Supreme Court Policy Making. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Stewart, Joseph Jr.,, and Sheffield, James F. Jr. 1987. “Does Interest Group Litigation Matter? The Case of Black Political Mobilization in Mississippi.” Journal of Politics 49:780–98.Google Scholar
Tushnet, Mark V. 1987. The NAACP's legal Strategy Against Segregated Education, 1925–1950. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Vose, Clement E. 1958. “Litigation as a Form of Pressure Group Activity.” Annab of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 319:20–31.Google Scholar
Vose, Clement E. 1959. Caucasians Only. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Vose, Clement E. 1972. Constitutional Change. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Walker, Thomas G., and Barrow, Deborah J.. 1985. “The Diversification of the Federal Bench: Policy and Process Ramifications.” Journal of Politics 47:596–617.Google Scholar
Wasby, Stephen L. 1984. “How Planned is ‘Planned’ Litigation?” American Bar Foundation Research Journal Winter:83–138.Google Scholar
Wasby, Stephen L. 1988. The Supreme Court in the Federal Judicial System. 3d ed. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Yinger, J. Milton, Kiyoshi, Ikeda, Laycock, Frank, and Kutler, Stephen J.. 1977. Middle Start: An Experiment in the Education Enrichment of Young Adolescents. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.