Stereotypes are powerful heuristics structuring decision-making, with research suggesting that gender-based stereotypes place women at a professional disadvantage. This paper tests whether attorneys’ gender influences Supreme Court outcomes. We construct an attorney-focused data set combining personal and professional attributes with case-level characteristics from 1946 to 2016. Our approach brings clarity to previous findings, enabling a longitudinal analysis of women participation before the Court. We find that attorney gender does not influence party success. In doing so, we show that a more nuanced approach is needed when studying the intersection between judicial outcomes and attorney traits.
AlexanderDeborahAndersenKristi. 1993. “Gender as a Factor in the Attribution of Leadership Traits.” Political Research Quarterly46 (3): 527–45.
2.
AronsonElliot. 1988. The Social Animal. New York: W.H. Freeman.
3.
BaileyMichael A.KamoieBrianMaltzmanForrest. 2005. “Signals from the Tenth Justice: The Political Role of the Solicitor General in Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science49 (1): 72–85.
4.
BlackRyan C.HallMatthew E. K.OwensRyan J.RingsmuthEve M.2016. “The Role of Emotional Language in Briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Law and Courts4 (2): 377–407.
5.
BlackRyan C.OwensRyan J.2013. “A Built-in Advantage: The Office of the Solicitor General and the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly66 (2): 454–66.
6.
BoydChristina L.EpsteinLeeMartinAndrew D.2010. “Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging.” American Journal of Political Science54 (2): 389–411.
7.
BrennerSaul. 1998. “Measuring the Importance of Supreme Court Decisions.” Law Library Journal90:183–92.
8.
BrinkmannBeth S.2003. “A First Argument in the Tradition of Many.” The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process5:61–73.
9.
BrooksDeborah Jordan. 2013. He Runs, She Runs: Why Gender Stereotypes Do Not Harm Women Candidates. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
10.
CaldeiraGregory A.WrightJohn R.1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review82 (4): 1109–27.
11.
ClarkTom S.LaxJeffrey R.RiceDouglas. 2015. “Measuring the Political Salience of Supreme Court Cases.” Journal of Law and Courts3(1): 37–65.
12.
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.
13.
CollinsTodd A.CooperChristopher A.2016. “The Case Salience Index, Public Opinion, and Decision Making on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Justice System Journal37 (3): 232–45.
14.
ConoverPamela Johnston. 1984. “The Influence of Group Identifications on Political Perception and Evaluation.” The Journal of Politics46 (3): 760–85.
15.
CortinaLilia M.LonswayKimberly A.MagleyVicki J.FreemanLeslie V.CollinsworthLinda L.HunterMaryFitzgeraldLouise F.2002. “What’s Gender Got to Do with It? Incivility in the Federal Courts.” Law & Social Inquiry27 (2): 235–70.
16.
CraigJane M.JacobsRick R.1985. “The Effect of Working with Women on Male Attitudes toward Female Firefighters.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology6 (1): 61–74.
17.
CuddyAmy J. C.FiskeSusan T.GlickPeter. 2004. “When Professionals Become Mothers, Warmth Doesn’t Cut the Ice.” Journal of Social Issues60 (4): 701–18.
18.
EpsteinLeeSegalJeffrey A.2000. “Measuring Issue Salience.” American Journal of Political Science44:66–83.
19.
FeldmanAdam. 2016. “Counting on Quality: The Effects of Merits Brief Quality on Supreme Court Decisions.” Denver Law Review94:43–70.
20.
FoxRichard L.OxleyZoe M.2003. “Gender Stereotyping in State Executive Elections: Candidate Selection and Success.” The Journal of Politics65 (3): 833–50.
21.
FridkinKim L.KenneyPatrick J.2009. “The Role of Gender Stereotypes in U.S. Senate Campaigns.” Politics & Gender5 (3): 301–24.
22.
GleasonShane A.2020. “Beyond Mere Presence: Gender Norms in Oral Arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly73 (3): 596–608.
23.
GleasonShane A.JonesJennifer J.McBeanJessica Rae. 2019. “The Role of Gender Norms in Judicial Decision-making at the U.S. Supreme Court: The Case of Male and Female Justices.” American Politics Research47 (3): 494–529.
24.
GreenwaldAnthony G.KlingerMark R.SchuhEric S.1995. “Activation by Marginally Perceptible (‘Subliminal’) Stimuli: Dissociation of Unconscious from Conscious Cognition.” Journal of Experimental Psychology124 (1): 22–42.
25.
GruhlJohnSpohnCassiaWelchSusan. 1981. “Women as Policymakers: The Case of Trial Judges.” American Journal of Political Science25:308–22.
26.
GryskiGerard S.MainEleanor C.DixonWilliam J.1986. “Models of State High Court Decision Making in Sex Discrimination Cases.” The Journal of Politics48 (1): 143–55.
27.
HanmerMichael J.KalkanKerem Ozan. 2013. “Behind the Curve: Clarifying the Best Approach to Calculating Predicted Probabilities and Marginal Effects from Limited Dependent Variable Models.” American Journal of Political Science57 (1): 263–77.
28.
HaslettBethGeisFlorence L.CarterMae R.1992. The Organizational Woman: Power and Paradox. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
29.
HayesDannyLawlessJennifer L.2015. “A Non-gendered Lens? Media, Voters, and Female Candidates in Contemporary Congressional Elections.” Perspectives on Politics13 (1): 95–118.
30.
HayesDannyLawlessJennifer L.BaitingerGail. 2014. “Who Cares What They Wear? Media, Gender, and the Influence of Candidate Appearance.” Social Science Quarterly95 (5): 1194–212.
31.
HuddyLeonieTerkildsenNayda. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science37:119–47.
32.
JohnsonTimothy R.2001. “Information, Oral Arguments, and Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Politics Research29 (4): 331–51.
33.
JohnsonTimothy R.2003. “The Supreme Court, the Solicitor General, and the Separation of Powers.” American Politics Research31 (4): 426–51.
34.
JohnsonTimothy R.WahlbeckPaul J.SpriggsJames F.2006. “The Influence of Oral Arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review100 (1): 99–113.
35.
KahenyErinSzmerJohnSarverTammy. 2011. “Women Lawyers before the Supreme Court of Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique44 (1): 83–109.
36.
KahnKim FridkinFridkinKim. 1996. The Political Consequences of Being a Woman: How Stereotypes Influence the Conduct and Consequences of Political Campaigns. New York: Columbia University Press.
37.
KarpowitzChristopher F.MendelbergTali. 2014. The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation, and Institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
38.
KingDavid C.MatlandRichard E.2003. “Sex and the Grand Old Party: An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Candidate Sex on Support for a Republican Candidate.” American Politics Research31 (6): 595–612.
39.
KritzerHerbert M.UhlmanThomas M.1977. “Sisterhood in the Courtroom: Sex of Judge and Defendant in Criminal Case Disposition.” Social Science Journal14 (2): 77–88.
40.
LauRichard R.RedlawskDavid P.2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science45 (4): 951–71.
41.
LawlessJennifer L.2004. “Politics of Presence? Congresswomen and Symbolic Representation.” Political Research Quarterly57 (1): 81–99.
42.
LonswayKimberly A.FreemanLeslie V.CortinaLilia M.MagleyVicki J.FitzgeraldLouise F.2002. “Understanding the Judicial Role in Addressing Gender Bias: A View from the Eighth Circuit Federal Court System.” Law & Social Inquiry27 (2): 205–34.
43.
MaltzmanForrestSpriggsJames F.WahlbeckPaul J.2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44.
MarcusGeorge E.MacKuenMichael B.1993. “Anxiety, Enthusiasm, and the Vote: The Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement during Presidential Campaigns.” American Political Science Review87 (3): 672–85.
45.
MartinAndrew D.QuinnKevin M.2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis10 (2): 134–53.
46.
McGuireKevin T.1990. “Obscenity, Libertarian Values, and Decision Making in the Supreme Court.” American Politics Quarterly18 (1): 47–67.
47.
McGuireKevin T.1995. “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success.” The Journal of Politics57 (1): 187–96.
48.
McGuireKevin T.1998. “Explaining Executive Success in the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly51 (2): 505–26.
49.
McKeeJohn P.SherriffsAlex C.1957. “The Differential Evaluation of Males and Females.” Journal of Personality25 (3): 356–71.
OwensRyan J.WohlfarthPatrick C.2014. “State Solicitors General, Appellate Expertise, and State Success before the US Supreme Court.” Law & Society Review48 (3): 657–85.
52.
PattonDanaSmithJoseph L.2017. “Lawyer, Interrupted: Gender Bias in Oral Arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Law and Courts5 (2): 337–61.
53.
PattonDanaSmithJoseph L.2020. “Gender, Ideology, and Dominance in Supreme Court Oral Arguments.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy41: 393–415.
54.
PeppersTodd C.2006. Courtiers of the Marble Palace: The Rise and Influence of the Supreme Court Law Clerk. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
55.
PeppersTodd C.ZornChristopher. 2008. “Law Clerk Influence on Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical Assessment.” Depaul Law Review58 (1): 51–78.
56.
PeresieJennifer L.2004. “Female Judges Matter: Gender and Collegial Decisionmaking in the Federal Appellate Courts.” The Yale Law Journal114:1759–90.
57.
PerryHersel W.1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
58.
PhillipsJames C.CarterEdward L.2009. “Gender and U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument on the Roberts Court: An Empirical Examination.” Rutgers Law Journal41:613.
59.
RingsmuthEve M.BryanAmanda C.JohnsonTimothy R.2013. “Voting Fluidity and Oral Argument on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly66 (2): 429–40.
SanbonmatsuKiraDolanKathleen. 2009. “Do Gender Stereotypes Transcend Party?” Political Research Quarterly62 (3): 485–94.
62.
SarverTammy A.KahenyErin B.SzmerJohn J.2007. “The Attorney Gender Gap in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation.” Judicature91:238–50.
63.
ShawKatherine. 2016. “Friends of the Court: Evaluating the Supreme Court’s Amicus Invitations.” Cornell Law Review101:1533–96.
64.
SongerDonald R.DavisSueHaireSusan. 1994. “A Reappraisal of Diversification in the Federal Courts: Gender Effects in the Courts of Appeals.” The Journal of Politics56 (2): 425–39.
65.
StevensGwendolynGardnerSheldon. 1987. “But Can She Command a Ship? Acceptance of Women by Peers at the Coast Guard Academy.” Sex Roles16 (3–4): 181–88.
66.
SzmerJohnKahenyErinSarverTammyDeCamillisMason. 2013. “The Impact of Attorney Gender on Decision Making in the United States Courts of Appeals.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy34 (1): 72–100.
67.
SzmerJohnSarverTammyKahenyErin. 2010. “Have We Come a Long Way, Baby? The Influence of Attorney Gender on Supreme Court Decision Making.” Politics & Gender6 (1): 1–36.
68.
TurnerCharles C.2015. “Gender, Judging, and the Decision to Concur: Female Justices and the Supreme Court.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Los Vegas, NV, 2–4 April. http://www.wpsanet.org/papers/docs/TurnerWPSA15.pdf.
69.
ValianVirginia. 2005. “Beyond Gender Schemas: Improving the Advancement of Women in Academia.” Hypatia20 (3): 198–213.
70.
WalkerThomas G.BarrowDeborah J.1985. “The Diversification of the Federal Bench: Policy and Process Ramifications.” The Journal of Politics47 (2): 596–617.
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.
