Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T08:09:18.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State Solicitors General, Appellate Expertise, and State Success Before the U.S. Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Ryan J. Owens  and
Patrick C. Wohlfarth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines how institutional design leads state governments to win their cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. We analyze whether states are more likely to prevail on the merits when they create a formal solicitor general office and have an attorney from that office argue their cases before the Court. We employ an analytical matching approach and find that attorneys from state solicitor general offices are significantly more likely to win their cases compared to other kinds of state attorneys. Accordingly, if states prioritize victory before the Court, they should consider creating state solicitor general offices and granting those solicitors general the authority to control their appellate litigation.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 657 - 685
Copyright
© 2014 Law and Society Association.

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

Black, Ryan C., & Owens, Ryan J. (2012) The Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court: Executive Influence and Judicial Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Christina L., Epstein, Lee, & Martin, Andrew D. (2010) “Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging,” 54 American J. of Political Science 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, Cornell, & McGuire, Jack (2001) “State Litigation Strategies and Policy Making in the U.S. Supreme Court,” 11 Kansas J. of Law and Public Policy 17–34.Google Scholar
Clayton, Cornell. (1994) “Law, Politics, and the New Federalism: State Attorneys General As National Policymakers,” 56 Rev. of Politics 525–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr. (2004) “Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation,” 38 Law & Society Rev. 807–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr. (2008) Friends of the Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & O'Connor, Karen (1988) “States and the Supreme Court: An Examination of Litigation Outcomes,” 68 Social Science Q. 660–74.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, et al. (2005) “The Supreme Court During Crisis: How War Affects Only Non-War Cases,” 80 New York University Law Rev. 1–116.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come out Ahead: Speculation on the Limits of Legal Changes,” 9 Law & Society Rev. 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goelzhauser, Greg, & Vouvalis, Nicole (2013) “State Coordinating Institutions and Agenda Setting on the U.S. Supreme Court”, 41 American Politics Research 819–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, Daniel E., et al. (2007) “Matching As Nonparametric Pre-Processing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference,” 15 Political Analysis 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, James C. (2010) “Defending Texas: The Office of the Solicitor General,” 29 The Rev. of Litigation 471–509.Google Scholar
Iacus, Stefano M., King, Gary, & Porro, Giuseppe (2009) “CEM: Software for Coarsened Exact Matching,” 30 J. of Statistical Software 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iacus, Stefano M., King, Gary, & Porro, Giuseppe (2010) “CEM: Software for Coarsened Exact Matching.” Extended user's guide, dated 22 February 2010 Available at: http://gking.harvard.edu/files/cem.pdf (accessed 3 January 2010).Google Scholar
Iacus, Stefano M., King, Gary, & Porro, Giuseppe (2012) “Causal Inferences Without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching,” 20 Political Analysis 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, John A. (1983) “The Solicitor General's Winning Ways,” 69 American Bar Association J. 734–8.Google Scholar
Jeong, Gyung-Ho, Miller, Gary, & Sobel, Andrew C. (2009) “Political Compromise and Bureaucratic Structure: The Political Origins of the Federal Reserve System,” 25 J. of Law, Economics, & Organization 42–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., Wahlbeck, Paul J., & Spriggs, James F. II (2006) “The Influence of Oral Argumentation Before the U.S. Supreme Court,” 100 American Political Science Rev. 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearney, Richard C., & Sheehan, Reginald S. (1992) “Supreme Court Decision Making: The Impact of Court Composition on State and Local Government Litigation,” 54 J. of Politics 1008–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knott, Jack, & Miller, Gary (1987) Reforming Bureaucracy: The Politics of Institutional Choice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lacovara, Philip Allen. (2008) Federal Appellate Practice. Arlington, VA: Bloomberg BNA.Google Scholar
Laverty, Edward B., & Palmer, Kenneth T. (2001) “State and Local Government Interest Groups Before the Supreme Court: Implications for Intergovernmental Policy,” 24 Public Administration Q. 522–37.Google Scholar
Layton, James R. (2001) “The Evolving Role of the State Solicitor: Toward the Federal Model? ” 3 The J. of Appellate Practice and Process 533–56.Google Scholar
Lewis, David E. (2003) Presidents and the Politics of Agency Design: Political Insulation in the United States Government Bureaucracy, 1946-1997. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott, & Freese, Jeremy (2006) Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, 2nd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., & Quinn, Kevin M. (2002) “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999,” 10 Political Analysis 134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauro, Tony. (2003) “Stating Their Case,” August 11. 26(31) Legal Times 1–8.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew, Noll, Roger, & Weingast, Barry (1987) “Administrative Procedures As Instruments of Political Control,” 3 J. of Law, Economics, and Organization 243–77.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. (1995) “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success,” 57 J. of Politics 187–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. (2004) “The Institutionalization of the U.S. Supreme Court,” 12 Political Analysis 128–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Banks (2010) “Describing the State Solicitors General,” 93 Judicature 238–46.Google Scholar
Miller, Gary. (1989) “Confiscation, Credible Commitment and Progressive Reform,” 145 J. of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 686–92.Google Scholar
Miller, Gary J., & Hammond, Thomas H. (1989) “Stability and Efficiency in A Separation of Powers Constitutional System,” in Grofman, Bernard, & Wittman, Donald, eds., The Federalist Papers and the New Institutionalism. New York, NY: Agathon Press. 85–99.Google Scholar
Morris, Thomas R. (1987) “States Before the U.S. Supreme Court: State Attorneys General As Amicus Curiae,” 70 Judicature 298–305.Google Scholar
Nordby, Rachel E. (2009) “Florida's Office of the Solicitor General: The First Ten Years,” 37 Florida State University Law Rev. 219–44.Google Scholar
North, Douglas, & Weingast, Barry (1989) “Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England,” 49 J. of Economic History 803–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Ryan J., & Simon, David A. (2012) “Explaining the Supreme Court's Docket Size,” 53 William and Mary Law Rev. 1219–85.Google Scholar
Perry, H.W. Jr. (1991) Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Provost, Colin. (2003) “State Attorneys General, Entrepreneurship, and Consumer Protection in the New Federalism,” 33 Publius: The J. of Federalism 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provost, Colin. (2006) “The Politics of Consumer Protection: Explaining State Attorney General Participation in Multi-State Lawsuits,” 59 Political Research Q. 609–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senior, Jennifer. (2013) “In Conversation: Antonin Scalia,” New York Magazine, October 6. Available at: http://nymag.com/news/features/antonin-scalia-2013-10.Google Scholar
Snyder, Susan K., & Weingast, Barry R. (2000) “The American System of Shared Powers: The President, Congress, and the NLRB,” 16 J. of Law, Economics, & Organization 269–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spill Solberg, Rorie L., & Ray, Leonard (2005) “All States Are Not Equal: Investigating the Differential Success of the States in the Courts of Appeals,” 5 State Politics and Policy Q. 147–67.Google Scholar
Squire, Peverill. (2007) “Measuring Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited,” 7 State Politics and Policy Q. 211–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. (2008) “Measuring the Professionalization of State Courts of Last Resort,” 8 State Politics and Policy Q. 223–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, David (2008) “Justices Rule Against Bush on Death Penalty Case,” The New York Times, March 25.Google Scholar
Symposium (2010) “The Rise of Appellate Litigators and State Solicitors General: Symposium Transcript,” 29 The Rev. of Litigation 545–727.Google Scholar
Waltenburg, Eric N., & Swinford, Bill (1999) Litigating Federalism: The States Before The U.S. Supreme Court. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Wohlfarth, Patrick C. (2009) “The Tenth Justice? Consequences of Politicization in the Solicitor General's Office,” 70 J. of Politics 224–37.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Owens and Wohlfarth supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 111.8 KB