Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:04:33.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

US Supreme Court Law Clerks as Information Sources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Christopher D. Kromphardt
Christopher D. Kromphardt*
Affiliation:
University of Alabama
*
Contact the author at cdkromphardt@bama.ua.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Justices use information from attorneys, amici, and the solicitor general to learn about cases. One source that has gone with little empirical scrutiny is their law clerks. I validate a measure of clerk preferences and analyze the role of information conveyed by clerks in shaping the justices’ votes on the merits. I report asymmetric support for the theory that clerks get what they want when they craft credible signals: the results support the conclusion that conservative clerks can influence vote direction. These findings bolster understanding of the role of information in hierarchical relationships and shine light on clerks’ roles.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , Fall 2015 , pp. 277 - 304
Copyright
© 2015 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

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.)

Footnotes

The author would like to thank Paul Collins and Todd Peppers for their data and Steve Borrelli, Amanda Bryan, Rich Fording, Doug Gibler, Robert Howard, David Klein, Emily Ritter, Doug Rice, Joe Smith, Amy Steigerwalt, Patrick Wohlfarth, Chris Zorn, and participants at the “Junior Assistants or Junior Justices: The Hiring, Utilization, and Influence of Law Clerks” symposium at Marquette University Law School for their feedback.

References

Adcock, Robert, and David Collier. 2001. “Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research.” American Political Science Review 95 (3): 529–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avery, Christopher, Christine Jolls, Posner, Richard A., and Roth, Alvin E.. 2001. “The Market for Federal Judicial Law Clerks.” University of Chicago Law Review 68 (3): 793–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael A., Brett Kamoie, and Forest Maltzman. 2005. “Signals from the Tenth Justice: The Political Role of the Solicitor General in Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 72–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence, and Corey Ditslear. 2010. “Supreme Court Clerkships and ‘Feeder Judges.’” Justice System Journal 31 (1): 26–48.Google Scholar
Benson, Christopher R. 2007. “A Renewed Call for Diversity among Supreme Court Clerks: How a Diverse Body of Clerks Can Aid the High Court as an Institution.” Harvard BlackLetter Law Journal 23:23–54.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C., and Boyd, Christina L.. 2012. “The Role of Law Clerks in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Agenda-Setting Process.” American Politics Research 40 (1): 147–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C., Boyd, Christina L., and Bryan, Amanda C.. 2014. “Revisiting the Influence of Law Clerks on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Agenda-Setting Process.” Marquette University Law Review 98 (1): 75–109.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C., and Owens, Ryan J.. 2012. The Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court: Executive Branch Influence and Judicial Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William R., and Matt Golder. 2006. “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses.” Political Analysis 14 (1): 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, Saul. 1992. “The Memos of Supreme Court Law Clerk William Rehnquist: Conservative Tracts, or Mirrors of His Justice’s Mind?” Judicature 76 (2): 77–81.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul. 1997. “Error-Correction on the U.S. Supreme Court: A View from the Clerks’ Memos.” Social Science Journal 34 (1): 1–9.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul, and Jan Palmer. 1990. “The Law Clerks’ Recommendations and Chief Justice Vinson’s Vote on Certiorari.” American Politics Research 18 (1): 68–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabresi, Massimo, and David Von Drehle. 2012. “What Will Justice Kennedy Do?” Time, June 18.Google Scholar
Calvert, Randall L. 1985. “The Value of Biased Information: A Rational Choice Model of Political Advice.” Journal of Politics 47 (2): 530–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M., Jr. 2008. Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C. 2008. “The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Influence of Parties’ Briefs.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (3): 468–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deen, Rebecca E., Joseph Ignagni, and James Meernik. 2003. “The Solicitor General as Amicus, 1953–2000: How Influential?” Judicature 87 (2): 60–71.Google Scholar
Ditslear, Corey, and Lawrence Baum. 2001. “Selection of Law Clerks and Polarization in the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 63 (3): 869–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enns, Peter K., and Wohlfarth, Patrick C.. 2013. “The Swing Justice.” Journal of Politics 75 (4): 1089–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Martin, Andrew D., Segal, Jeffrey A., and Chad Westerland. 2007. “The Judicial Common Space.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 23 (2): 303–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gailmard, Sean, and John Patty. 2012. Learning While Governing: Expertise and Accountability in the Executive Branch. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gehlbach, Scott. 2013. Formal Models of Domestic Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, Michael, Virginia Hettinger, and Peppers, Todd C.. 2001. “Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas.” Political Research Quarterly 54 (3): 623–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, Daniel E., and Quinn, Kevin M.. 2010. “How Not to Lie with Judicial Votes: Misconceptions, Measurement, and Models.” California Law Review 98 (3): 813–76.Google Scholar
Hollis-Brusky, Amanda. 2015. Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counter-revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., Wahlbeck, Paul J., and Spriggs, James F.. 2006. “The Influence of Oral Arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 100 (1): 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Daniel M., and Stafford, Derek K.. 2010. “Hustle and Flow: A Social Network Analysis of the American Federal Judiciary.” Ohio State Law Journal 71 (3): 457–509.Google Scholar
Kearney, Joseph, and Thomas Merrill. 2000. “The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148 (3): 743–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, Sally J. 2000a. “Beyond Principals and Agents: Seeing Courts as Organizations by Comparing Referendaires at the European Court of Justice and Law Clerks at the U.S. Supreme Court.” Comparative Political Studies 33 (5): 593–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, Sally J. 2000b. “Puppeteers or Agents? What Lazarus’s Closed Chambers Adds to Our Understanding of Law Clerks at the U.S. Supreme Court.” Law and Social Inquiry 25 (1): 185–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozinski, Alex, and Fred Bernstein. 1998. “Clerkship Politics.” Green Bag 2 (Autumn): 57–64.Google Scholar
Kromphardt, Christopher D. 2014. “Fielding an Excellent Team: Law Clerk Selection and Chambers Structure at the U.S. Supreme Court.” Marquette University Law Review 98 (1): 289–311.Google Scholar
Lazarus, Edward. 1999. Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Liptak, Adam. 2010. “A Sign of the Court’s Polarization: Choice of Clerks.” New York Times, September 6.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., and Quinn, Kevin M.. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10 (2): 134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAtee, Andrea, and McGuire, Kevin T.. 2007. “Lawyers, Justices, and Issue Salience: When and How Do Legal Arguments Affect the U.S. Supreme Court?” Law and Society Review 41 (2): 259–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, William E., Harvey Rishikof, I. Scott Messinger, and Michael Jo. 2009. “The Liberal Tradition of the Supreme Court Clerkship: Its Rise, Fall, and Reincarnation?” Vanderbilt Law Review 62 (6): 1749–1814.Google Scholar
Palmer, Barbara. 2001. “The ‘Bermuda Triangle’? The Cert Pool and Its Influence over the Supreme Court’s Agenda.” Constitutional Commentary 18 (1): 105–20.Google Scholar
Palmer, Jan, and Saul Brenner. 1995. “The Law Clerks’ Recommendations and the Conference Vote On-the-Merits on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Justice System Journal 18 (2): 185–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearlstein, Deborah N. 2000. “The Power to Persuade: A Year in the Life of a Supreme Court Clerk.” NCJW Journal, October 31.Google Scholar
Peppers, Todd C. 2006. Courtiers of the Marble Palace: The Rise and Influence of the Supreme Court Law Clerk. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peppers, Todd C. 2012. “Of Leakers and Legal Briefers: The Modern Supreme Court Law Clerk.” Charleston Law Review 7 (1): 95–109.Google Scholar
Peppers, Todd C., and Artemus Ward. 2012. In Chambers: Stories of Supreme Court Law Clerks and Their Justices. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Peppers, Todd C., and Christopher Zorn. 2008. “Law Clerk Influence on Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical Assessment.” DePaul Law Review 58:51–77.Google Scholar
Perry, H. W. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 1998. “Estimating a Basic Space from a Set of Issue Scales.” American Journal of Political Science 42:954–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1995. “The Rise of the Law Clerk.” Long Term View 3 (1): 23–31.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2009. How Judges Think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Jeffrey S., and Yoon, Albert H.. 2011. “Judicial Ghostwriting: Authorship on the Supreme Court.” Cornell Law Review 96:1307–44.Google Scholar
Savage, David G. 2011. “Clarence Thomas Is His Own Man.” Los Angeles Times, July 3.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey, and Albert Cover. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83 (2): 557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey, Lee Epstein, Charles Cameron, and Harold Spaeth. 1995. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Revisited.” Journal of Politics 57 (3): 812–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold. 2003. The Original United States Supreme Court Database, 1953–2004 Terms. East Lansing: Department of Political Science, Michigan State University. http://web.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/sct-data.htm (accessed December 14, 2011).Google Scholar
Spitzer, Matthew, and Eric Talley. 2013. “Left, Right, and Center: Strategic Information Acquisition and Diversity in Judicial Panels.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 29 (3): 638–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spriggs, James F., and Wahlbeck, Paul J.. 1997. “Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 50 (2): 365–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stras, David R. 2007. “The Supreme Court’s Gatekeepers: The Role of Law Clerks in the Certiorari Process.” Texas Law Review 85:947–97.Google Scholar
Szmer, John, and Ginn, Martha H.. 2014. “Examining the Effects of Information, Attorney Capability, and Amicus Participation on U.S. Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Politics Review 42 (3): 441–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tate, C. Neal. 1981. “Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economics Decisions, 1946–1978.” American Political Science Review 75 (2): 355–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tate, C. Neal, and Roger Handberg. 1991. “Time Binding and Theory Building in Personal Attribute Models of Supreme Court Voting Behavior, 1916–88.” American Journal of Political Science 35 (2): 460–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Andrew P. 2002. Clarence Thomas: A Biography. San Francisco: Encounter Books.Google Scholar
Velvel, Lawrence R. 1995. “Introduction.” Long Term View 3:2–8.Google Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul J., Spriggs, James F., and Lee Sigelman. 2002. “Ghostwriters on the Court? A Stylistic Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Drafts.” American Politics Research 30 (2): 166–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallander, Zachary, and Benesh, Sara C.. 2014. “Law Clerks as Advisors: A Look at the Blackmun Papers.” Marquette University Law Review 98 (1): 43–73.Google Scholar
Ward, Artemus and Wasby, Stephen L.. 2010. “‘Get a Life!’ On Interviewing Law Clerks.” Justice System Journal 31 (2): 1–19.Google Scholar
Ward, Artemus, and Weiden, David L.. 2006. Sorcerer’s Apprentices: 100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States Supreme Court. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Wasby, Stephen L. 2006. “Why Clerk? What Did I Get Out of It?” Journal of Legal Education 56 (3): 411–29.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. Harvie, III. 2012. “Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.: A Personal View by a Former Clerk.” In In Chambers: Stories of Supreme Court Law Clerks and Their Justices, ed. Todd C. Peppers and Artemus Ward, 7–8. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Worthen, Kevin J. 2012. “Shirt-Tales: Clerking for Byron White.” In In Chambers: Stories of Supreme Court Law Clerks and Their Justices, ed. Peppers, Todd C. and Artemus Ward, 342–49. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar