Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T22:24:27.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interest Group Participation, Competition, and Conflict in the U.S. Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Paul M. Collins Jr  and
Lisa A. Solowiej
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we analyze how pluralistic, competitive, and conflictual interest group amicus curiae participation is in the U.S. Supreme Court. Examining participating organizations and briefs during the 1995 term, we address three inquiries. First, we scrutinize the types of organized interests who participate as amici curiae. We find that the Court is open to a wide array of interests and that particular types of groups do not dominate amicus activity. Second, we analyze the frequency with which amici file briefs on opposing sides of dispute. We reveal few strict patterns of competition, suggesting that Supreme Court cases are salient to a diverse spectrum of interest groups, many of which are not usually thought of as being in competition with one another. Third, we investigate how often and which amici directly cite one another for purposes of invalidating each other's argumentation. While amici have a great deal of opportunity for this form of direct conflict, it is surprisingly rare. Nonetheless, when amici engage in this express form of discord, they play a clear role in shaping the flow of information at the Court.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , Fall 2007 , pp. 955 - 984
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2007 

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

Basinger, Nancy Winemiller. 2004. The Legal Strategy Choices of Charities in Their Court-Based Advocacy Efforts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 15–18.Google Scholar
Behuniak-Long, Susan. 1991. Friendly Fire: Amici Curiae and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. Judicature 74:261–70.Google Scholar
Bentley, Arthur F. 1908. The Process of Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Berry, Jeffrey M. 1997. The Interest Group Society, 3rd ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Bradley, Robert C., and Gardner, Paul. 1985. Underdogs, Upperdogs, and the Use of the Amicus Curiae Brief. Justice System Journal 19:78–96.Google Scholar
Browne, William P. 1990. Organized Interests and Their Issue Niches: A Search for Pluralism in a Policy Domain. Journal of Politics. 52:477–509.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., Hojnacki, Marie, and Wright, John R. 2000. The Lobbying Activities of Organized Interests in Federal Judicial Nominations. Journal of Politics 62:51–69.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R. 1988. Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 82:1109–27.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R. 1990. Amici Curiae Before the Supreme Court: Who Participates, When, and How Much. Journal of Politics 52:782–806.Google Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr. 2004. Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation. Law & Society Review 38:807–32.Google Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr. 2007. Lobbyists before the U.S. Supreme Court: Investigating the Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs. Political Research Quarterly 60:55–70.Google Scholar
Comparato, Scott A. 2003. Amici Curiae and Strategic Behavior in State Supreme Courts. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Cortner, Richard C. 1968. Strategies and Tactics of Litigants in Constitutional Cases. Journal of Public Law 17:287–307.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Day, Jack G. 2001. Words that Counted—A Vignette. Case Western Reserve Law Review 52:373–74.Google Scholar
Ennis, Bruce L. 1984. Effective Amicus Briefs. Catholic University Law Review 33:603–09.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee. 1985. Conservatives in Court. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee. 1991. Courts and Interest Groups. In The American Courts: A Critical Assessment, ed. Gates, John B. and Johnson, Charles A. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee. 1994. Exploring the Participation of Organized Interests in State Court Litigation. Political Research Quarterly 47:335–51.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and King, Gary. 2002. The Rules of Inference. University of Chicago Law Review 69:1–133.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. 1997. United States Supreme Court Judicial Data Base, Phase II: 1953–1993. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., Stefanie, A. Lindquist, and Martinek, Wendy L. 2006. Judging on a Collegial Court: Influences on Federal Appellate Decision Making. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Ivers, Gregg, and O'Connor, Karen. 1987. Friends as Foes: The Amicus Curiae Participation and Effectiveness of the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans for Effective Law Enforcement in Criminal Cases, 1969–1982. Law & Policy 9:161–78.Google Scholar
Jost, Kenneth. 1996. The Supreme Court Yearbook, 1995–1996. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Kearney, Joseph D., and Merrill, Thomas W. 2000. The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148:743–855.Google Scholar
Kearney, Richard C., and Sheehan, Reginald S. 1992. Supreme Court Decision Making: The Impact of Court Composition on State and Local Government Litigation. Journal of Politics 54:1008–25.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1996. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kolbert, Kathryn. 1989. The Webster Amicus Curiae Briefs: Perspectives on the Abortion Controversy and the Role of the Supreme Court. American Journal of Law & Medicine 15:153–69.Google Scholar
Krislov, Samuel. 1963. The Amicus Curiae Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy. Yale Law Journal 72:694–721.Google Scholar
Kuersten, A.K., and Jagemann, Jason. 2000. Does the Interest Group Choir Really “Sing with an Upper Class Accent?” Coalitions of Race and Gender Groups Before the Supreme Court. Women & Politics 21:53–73.Google Scholar
Lowman, Michael K. 1992. The Litigating Amicus Curiae: When Does the Party Begin After the Friends Leave? American University Law Review 41:1243–99.Google Scholar
Lynch, Kelly J. 2004. Best Friends?: Supreme Court Law Clerks on Effective Amicus Curiae Briefs. Journal of Law & Politics 20:33–75.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 1990. Obscenity, Libertarian Values and Decision Making in the Supreme Court. American Politics Quarterly 18:47–67.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 1995. Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success. Journal of Politics 57:187–96.Google Scholar
Morris, Thomas R. 1987. States Before the U.S. Supreme Court: State Attorneys General as Amicus Curiae. Judicature 70:298–305.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen. 1983. The Amicus Curiae Role of the U.S. Solicitor General in Supreme Court Litigation. Judicature 66:256–64.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen, and Epstein, Lee. 1982. The Importance of Interest Group Involvement in Employment Discrimination Litigation. Howard Law Journal 25:709–29.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen, and Epstein, Lee. 1983a. Court Rules and Workload: A Case Study of Rules Governing Amicus Curiae Participation. Justice System Journal 8:35–45.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen, and Epstein, Lee. 1983b. The Rise of Conservative Interest Group Litigation. Journal of Politics 45:479–89.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen, and Epstein, Lee. 1989. Public Interest Law Groups. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Parker, Frederick R. 1999. Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill: An Analysis of the Amicus Curiae Briefs and the Supreme Court's Majority and Concurring Opinions. Saint Louis University Law Journal 43:469–542.Google Scholar
Perry, H. W. Jr. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Puro, Steven. 1971. The Role of Amicus Curiae in the United States Supreme Court: 1920–1966. PhD diss., Department of Political Science, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.Google Scholar
Rustad, Michael, and Koenig, Thomas. 1993. The Supreme Court and Junk Social Science: Selective Distortion in Amicus Briefs. North Carolina Law Review 72:91–162.Google Scholar
Salisbury, Robert H. 1984. Interest Representation: The Dominance of Institutions. American Political Science Review 78:64–76.Google Scholar
Salisbury, Robert H., Heinz, John P., Laumann, Edward O., and Nelson, Robert L. 1987. Who Works With Whom? Interest Group Alliance and Opposition. American Political Science Review 81:1217–34.Google Scholar
Samuels, Suzanne U. 2004. First Among Friends: Interest Groups, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Right to Privacy. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Scheppele, Kim Lane, and Walker, Jack L. Jr. 1991. The Litigation Strategies of Interest Groups. In Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements, ed. Walker, Jack L. Jr. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Schlozman, Kay L. 1984. What Accent the Heavenly Chorus? Political Equality and the American Pressure System. Journal of Politics 46:1006–32.Google Scholar
Schlozman, Kay L., and Tierney, John T. 1986. Organized Interests and American Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1988. Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General During the Warren and Burger Courts. Western Political Quarterly 41:135–44.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., and Sheehan, Reginald S. 1993. Interest Group Success in the Courts: Amicus Participation in the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly 46:339–54.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. 2004. The Original United States Supreme Court Database, 1953–2004 Terms. East Lansing: Department of Political Science, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Spriggs, James F., and Wahlbeck, Paul J. 1997. Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly 50:365–86.Google Scholar
Sungaila, Mary-Christine. 1999. Effective Amicus Practice Before the United States Supreme Court: A Case Study. Southern California Review of Law and Women's Studies 8:187–96.Google Scholar
Truman, David B. 1951. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Vose, Clement. 1955. NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases. Western Reserve Law Review 6:101–45.Google Scholar
Walker, Jack L. JR. 1991. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Walter, Bettyruth. 1988. The Jury Summation As Speech Genre: An Ethnographic Study of What it Means to Those Who Use It. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Wasby, Stephen L. 1995. Race Relations Litigation in an Age of Complexity. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Wohl, Alexander. 1996. Friends with Agendas: Amicus Curiae Briefs May Be More Popular Than Persuasive. American Bar Association Journal 82:46–50.Google Scholar
Wright, John R. 1989. PAC Contributions, Lobbying, and Representation. Journal of Politics 51:713–29.Google Scholar