Interest group participation in state courts of last resort has increased substantially over the past four decades, and the scope of this litigation activity has expanded to include a wider range of group participation. Despite the fact that organized interests increasingly recognize state high courts as legitimate policy venues, little is known about how interest groups choose the specific cases in which they participate. Beginning with the assumption that interest groups seek policy influence, this paper tests the hypothesis that groups strategically target cases that will best serve the policy and institutional interests of the group, while focusing group resources on cases and courts where they are most likely to be successful. Using an original dataset assembled from content analysis of more than 2,300 state supreme court decisions handed down between 1995 and 2010 and spanning three distinct areas of law—products liability, environmental law, and free speech and expression—this paper investigates the case-level and court-level factors that attract interest group participation as amicus curiae in state high courts.
BeneshSara C.MartinekWendy L.. 2002. “State Supreme Court Decision Making in Confession Cases.” The Justice System Journal23 (1): 109–33.
2.
BonicaAdamWoodruffMichael J.. 2015. “A Common-Space Measure of State Supreme Court Ideology.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization31 (3): 472–78.
3.
Box-SteffensmeierJanet M.ChristensonDino P.HittMatthew P.. 2013. “Quality over Quantity: Amici Influence and Judicial Decision Making.” American Political Science Review107 (3): 446–60.
4.
BracePaulBoyeaBrent D.. 2008. “State Public Opinion, the Death Penalty, and the Practice of Electing Judges.” American Journal of Political Science52 (2): 360–72.
5.
BracePaulButlerKellie Sims. 2001. “New Perspectives for the Comparative Study of the Judiciary: The State Supreme Court Project.” Justice System Journal22 (3): 243–62.
6.
BracePaulHallMelinda Gann. 1997. “The Interplay of Preferences, Case Facts, Context, and Rules in the Politics of Judicial Choice.” Journal of Politics59 (4): 1206–31.
7.
BracePaulHallMelinda GannLangerLaura. 1999. “Judicial Choice and the Politics of Abortion: Institutions, Context, and the Autonomy of Courts.” Albany Law Review62:1265–1303.
8.
BracePaulHallMelinda GannLangerLaura. 2001. “Placing State Supreme Courts in State Politics.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly1:81–108.
9.
BracePaulLangerLauraHallMelinda Gann. 2000. “Measuring the Preferences of State Supreme Court Judges.” Journal of Politics62 (2): 387–413.
10.
CaldaroneRichard P.Canes-WroneBrandiceClarkTom. 2009. “Partisan Labels and Democratic Accountability: An Analysis of State Supreme Court Abortion Decisions.” Journal of Politics71 (2): 560–73.
11.
CaldeiraGregory A.WrightJohn R.. 1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court” American Political Science Review82(4): 1109–1127.
12.
CaldeiraGregory A.WrightJohn R.. 1990. “Amici Curiae before the Supreme Court: Who Participates, When, and How Much?” Journal of Politics52 (3): 782–806.
13.
Canes-WroneBrandiceClarkTom S.KellyJason P.. 2014. “Judicial Selection and Death Penalty Decisions.” American Political Science Review108 (1): 23–39.
14.
CannDamon. 2007. “Justice for Sale? Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decisionmaking.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly7 (3): 281–97.
15.
CannDamon M.WilhelmTeena. 2011. “Case Visibility and the Electoral Connection in State Supreme Courts.” American Politics Research39 (3): 557–81.
16.
CollinsPaul M.2004. “Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation.” Law & Society Review38 (4): 807–32.
17.
CollinsPaul M.2007. “Lobbyists before the U.S. Supreme Court: Investigating the Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs.” Political Research Quarterly60 (1): 55–70.
18.
CollinsPaul M.2008. Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
ComparatoScott A.McClurgScott D.. 2007. “A Neo-institutional Explanation of State Supreme Court Responses in Search and Seizure Cases.” American Politics Research35 (5): 726–54.
20.
CorballySarah F.BrossDonald C.FlangoVictor E.. 2004. “Filing of Amicus Curiae Briefs in State Courts of Last Resort: 1960–2000.” Justice System Journal25:39–56.
21.
EppCharles R.1998. The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
22.
EpsteinLee. 1991. “Courts and Interest Groups.” In The American Courts: A Critical Assessment, edited by GatesJohn B.JohnsonCharles A., 335–371. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
23.
EpsteinLee. 1994. “Exploring the Participation of Organized Interests in State Court Litigation.” Political Research Quarterly47 (2): 335–51.
24.
EpsteinLeeKnightJack. 1999. “Mapping Out the Strategic Terrain: The Informational Role of Amici Curiae.” In Supreme Court Decision-Making, edited by ClaytonCornell W.GillmanHoward, 215–235. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
EpsteinLeeKobylkaJoseph F.. 1992. The Supreme Court and Legal Change: Abortion and the Death Penalty. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
26.
EricksonRobert S.WrightGerald C.McIverJohn P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
FlangoVictor E.BrossDonald C.CorballySarah. 2006. “Amicus Curiae Briefs: The Court’s Perspective.” Justice System Journal27 (2): 180–90.
28.
GaisThomas L.WalkerJack L.Jr.1991. “Pathways to Influence in American Politics.” In Mobilizing Interest Groups in America, edited by WalkerJack L.Jr., 103–121. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
29.
GonenJulianna S.2003. Litigation as Lobbying: Reproductive Hazards and Interest Aggregation. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
30.
GryskiGerard S.MainEleanor C.DixonWilliam J.. 1986. “Models of State High Court Decision Making in Sex Discrimination Cases.” The Journal of Politics48:143–55.
31.
HallMelinda GannBracePaul. 1999. “State Supreme Courts and Their Environments: Avenues to General Theories of Judicial Choice.” In Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches, edited by ClaytonCornell W.GillmanHoward, 281–300. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
HansfordThomas G.2004a. “Information Provision, Organizational Constraints, and the Decision to Submit an Amicus Curiae Brief in a U.S. Supreme Court Case.” Political Research Quarterly57 (2): 219–30.
33.
HansfordThomas G.2004b. “Lobbying Strategies, Venue Selection, and Organized Interest Involvement at the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Politics Research32 (2): 170–97.
34.
HoekstraValerie. 2005. “Competing Constraints: State Court Responses to Supreme Court Decisions and Legislation on Wages and Hours.” Political Research Quarterly58 (2): 317–28.
35.
HuberGregory A.GordonSanford C.. 2004. “Accountability and Coercion: Is Justice Blind When It Runs for Office?” American Journal of Political Science48 (2): 247–63.
36.
KearneyJoseph D.MerrillThomas W.. 2000. “The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review148:1–68.
37.
KobylkaJoseph F.1991. The Politics of Obscenity: Group Litigation in a Time of Legal Change. New York: Greenwood Press.
38.
LangerLaura. 2002. Judicial Review in State Supreme Courts: A Comparative Study. Albany: State University of New York Press.
39.
MoeTerry M.1980. The Organization of Interests: Incentives and the Internal Dynamics of Political Interest Groups. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40.
O’ConnorKaren. 1980. Women’s Organizations’ Use of the Courts. Lexington: Lexington Books.
41.
O’ConnorKarenEpsteinLee. 1983. “The Rise of Conservative Interest Group Litigation.” Journal of Politics45 (2): 479–89.
42.
OlsonSusan M.1984. Clients and Lawyers: Securing the Rights of Disabled Persons. Westport: Greenwood Press.
43.
SalzmanRyanWilliamsChristopher J.CalvinBryan T.. 2011. “The Determinants of the Number of Amicus Briefs Filed Before the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–2001.” Justice System Journal32 (3): 293–313.
44.
SampleJamesSkaggsAdamBlitzerJonathanCaseyLinda. 2010. The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2000–2009: Decade of Change. Washington, DC: Justice at Stake Campaign.
45.
SamuelsSuzanne U.2004. First among Friends: Interest Groups, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Right to Privacy. Westport: Praeger.
46.
ScheppeleKim LaneWalkerJack L.Jr.1991. “The Litigation Strategies of Interest Groups.” In Mobilizing Interest Groups in America, edited by WalkerJack L.Jr., 157–183. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
47.
SchlozmanKay LemanTierneyJohn T.. 1986. Organized Interests and American Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
48.
SchotlandRoy A.2001. “Financing Judicial Elections, 2000: Change and Challenge.” Law Review of Michigan State University Detroit College of Law14 (1): 849–99.
49.
ShepherdJoanna M.2009. “Money, Politics, and Impartial Justice.” Duke Law Journal58:622–85.
50.
ShepherdJoanna M.2013. Justice at Risk: An Empirical Analysis of Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decisions. Washington, DC: American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.
51.
SkaggsAdamda SilvaMariaCaseyLindaHallCharles. 2011. The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2009–2010. Washington, DC: Justice at Stake Campaign.
52.
SolbergRorie SpillWaltenbergEric N.. 2006. “Why Do Interest Groups Engage the Judiciary? Policy Wishes and Structural Needs.” Social Science Quarterly87 (3): 558–72.
53.
SongerDonald R.KuerstenAshlyn. 1995. “The Success of Amici in State Supreme Courts.” Political Research Quarterly48:31–42.
54.
SongerDonald R.KuerstenAshlynKahenyErin. 2000. “Why the Haves Don’t Always Come Out Ahead: Repeat Players Meet Amici Curiae for the Disadvantaged.” Political Research Quarterly53 (3): 537–56.
55.
SongerDonald R.SheehanReginald S.. 1993. “Interest Group Success in the Courts: Amicus Participation in the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly46 (2): 339–54.
56.
SpillRorie. 2001. “Choosing Among the Branches: Strategic Advocacy by Interest Groups.” American Review of Politics22:375–95.
57.
SpillerPablo T.Vanden BerghRichard G.. 2003. “Toward a Positive Theory of State Supreme Court Decision Making.” Business and Politics5 (1): 7–43.
58.
SpriggsJames F.WahlbeckPaul J.. 1997. “Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly50 (2): 365–86.
59.
SquirePeverill. 2008. “Measuring the Professionalization of U.S. State Courts of Last Resort.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly8 (3): 223–38.
60.
StrebMatthew J.2007. Running for Judge: The Rising Political, Financial and Legal Stakes of Judicial Elections. New York: New York University Press.
61.
TarrG. AlanPorterMary Cornelia Aldis. 1988. State Supreme Courts in State and Nation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
62.
VoseClement E.1958. “Litigation as a Form of Pressure Group Activity.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science319:20–31.
63.
VoseClement E.1959. Caucasians Only: The Supreme Court, the NAACP, and the Restrictive Covenant Cases. Berkeley: University of California Press.
64.
WalkerJack L.Jr.1991. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
65.
WasbyStephen L.1995. Race Relations in an Age of Complexity. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
