Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T13:40:19.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Jessica A. Schoenherr  and
Nicholas W. Waterbury
Jessica A. Schoenherr*
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina, USA
Nicholas W. Waterbury
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis, USA
*
Contact the corresponding author, Jessica A. Schoenherr, at js122@mailbox.sc.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.”

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , Spring 2022 , pp. 13 - 36
Copyright
© 2022 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

Originally prepared for the 2018 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. We thank Aaron-Andrew Bruhl, Ryan Owens, and Patrick Wohlfarth for sharing their data. We also thank Ryan Black, Josh Boston, Tim Johnson, Jonathan King, Elizabeth Lane, Jeff Segal, Cory Smidt, and our anonymous reviewers for their help on multiple iterations of this project. Data and supporting materials necessary to reproduce the numerical results in the article are available in the JLC Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DWBQ38.

References

Anders, Ginger D. 2017. “Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General: An Obscure but Important Part of Supreme Court Practice.” Trends 48 (6). http://bit.ly/2FbWfAZ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael A., Brian Kamoie, and Forrest 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. 2006. Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C., and Christina L. Boyd. 2013. “Selecting the Select Few: The Discuss List and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Agenda-Setting Process.” Social Science Quarterly 94 (4): 1124–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C., and Ryan J. Owens. 2011. “Solicitor General Influence and Agenda Setting on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (4):765–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C. 2012a. “A Built-In Advantage: The Office of the Solicitor General and the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 66 (2): 454–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C. 2012b. “Looking Back to Move Forward: Quantifying Policy Predictions in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (4): 802–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C. 2012c. The Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court: Executive Branch Influence and Judicial Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C., Ryan J. Owens, Justin Wedeking, and Patrick C. Wohlfarth. 2020. The Conscientious Justice: How Supreme Court Justices’ Personalities Influence the Law, the High Court, and the Constitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bruhl, Aaron-Andrew P. 2009. “The Supreme Court’s Controversial GVRs—and an Alternative.” Michigan Law Review 107:711–55.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright. 1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 82 (4): 1109–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, Lincoln. 1987. The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the Rule of Law. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Chabria, Anita. 2018. “Trump Seeks to Bypass 9th Circuit Court in DACA Immigration Debate.” Sacramento Bee, January 16. https://bit.ly/33dkdJZ.Google Scholar
Collins, Paul M. 2008. Friends of the Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Todd A., and Christopher A. Cooper. 2015. “Making the Cases ‘Real’: Newspaper Coverage of U.S. Supreme Court Cases, 1953–2004.” Political Communication 32:23–42.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
Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Chad Westerland. 2008. “The Increasing Importance of Ideology in the Nomination and Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices.” Drake Law Review 56:609–35.Google Scholar
Greene, Jamal. 2011. “The Anticanon.” Harvard Law Review 125 (2): 379–475.Google Scholar
Hanmer, Michael J., and Kerem Ozan Kalkan. 2013. “Behind the Curve: Clarifying the Best Approach to Calculating Predicted Probabilities and Marginal Effects from Limited Dependent Variable Models.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (1): 263–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, Amy. 2018. “Federal Government Returns to Supreme Court on DACA Termination.” SCOTUSblog, November 5. https://bit.ly/2UXFX8q.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., Paul J. Wahlbeck, and James F. Spriggs. 2006. “The Influence of Oral Argument before the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 100 (1): 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katyal, Neal. 2011. “Confession of Error: The Solicitor General’s Mistakes during the Japanese-American Internment Cases.” Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs (blog), May 20. https://bit.ly/39zalfK.Google Scholar
Katyal, Neal. 2013. “The Solicitor General and Confessions of Error.” Fordham Law Review 81:3027–37.Google Scholar
Lerner, Adam B. 2015. “Ted Cruz: States Should Ignore Gay Marriage Ruling.” Politico, June 29. https://politi.co/3nXznLk.Google Scholar
Liptak, Adam. 2014. “A Discredited Supreme Court Ruling That Still, Technically, Stands.” New York Times, January 27. https://nyti.ms/30SW2yB.Google Scholar
Liptak, Adam. 2017. “Trump’s Legal U-Turns May Test Supreme Court’s Patience.” New York Times, August 28. https://nyti.ms/2BCDUk5.Google Scholar
Liptak, Adam, and Michael D. Shear. 2018. “Supreme Court Turns Down Trump’s Appeal in ‘Dreamers’ Case.” New York Times, February 26. https://nyti.ms/33fB683.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 1995. “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success.” Journal of Politics 57 (1): 187–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, John M. 2012. “Why the Supreme Court Should Stop GVR’ing the Solicitor General’s Rationale-Confessions-of-Error.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 62 (3): 879–917.Google Scholar
Okun, Eli. 2020. “Trump Calls for Sotomayor, Ginsburg to Recuse Themselves from Cases Dealing with His Administration.” Politico, February 25. https://politi.co/3fxF7J5.Google Scholar
Pacelle, Richard. 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.Google Scholar
Palmer, Jan. 1982. “An Econometric Analysis of the US Supreme Court’s Cert Decisions.” Public Choice 39 (3): 387–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, H. W. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, David M. 1994. “Confession of Error in the Supreme Court by the Solicitor General.” Georgetown Law Journal 82:2079–117.Google Scholar
Salokar, Rebecca Mae. 1992. The Solicitor General: The Politics of Law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Savage, David G. 2011. “U.S. Official Cites Misconduct in Japanese American Internment Cases.” Los Angeles Times, May 24. https://lat.ms/3eIsGZ5.Google Scholar
Schoenherr, Jessica A., and Ryan C. Black. 2019. “Friends with Benefits: Case Significance, Amicus Curiae, and Agenda Setting on the US Supreme Court.” International Review of Law and Economics 58:43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1990. “Supreme Court Support for the Solicitor General: The Effect of Presidential Appointments.” Western Political Quarterly 43 (1): 137–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cheryl D. Reedy. 1988. “The Supreme Court and Sex Discrimination: The Role of the Solicitor General.” Western Political Quarterly 41 (3): 553–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Geoffrey R. 2004. Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Thompson, David C., and Melanie Wachtell. 2009. “An Empirical Anlaysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures: The Call for Response and the Call for the Views of the Solicitor General.” George Mason Law Review 16 (2): 237–302.Google Scholar
Westwood, Sarah. 2017. “Exclusive Interview: Trump ‘Absolutely’ Looking at Breaking Up 9th Circuit.” Washington Examiner, April 26. https://washex.am/2V0z6eg.Google Scholar
Wohlfarth, Patrick C. 2009. “The Tenth Justice? Consequences of Politicization in the Solicitor General’s Office.” Journal of Politics 71 (1): 224–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Richard. 2020. “Solicitor General Noel Francisco Resigns after Tumultous Years Representing Trump at Supreme Court.” USA Today, June 17. https://bit.ly/2Jci6zf.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Schoenherr and Waterbury supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 652.4 KB