The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) wins more cases before the US Supreme Court than any other party. Recent scholarship shows that justices are most likely to side with the OSG when its position is ideologically aligned with justices’ predispositions and when the OSG takes a position counter its own presumed preferences. However, previous studies fail to account for how the institutional role of the OSG shapes what should be considered a counter-preference signal. We offer a new approach to defining the OSG’s preferences and test our assumptions using cases argued before the Court from 1979 to 2018. We show it is more common for the OSG to act against its ideological predispositions than its institutional interests, and it is exceedingly rare for it to act against both. We find the effects of counter-interest signals are context dependent and may be less important than ideological congruence and institutional concerns.
BaileyMichaelKamoieBrianMaltzmanForrest. 2005. “Signals from the Tenth Justice: The Political Role of the Solicitor General in Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science49 (1): 72–8.
2.
BirdChristine. 2022. The Gatekeeping Role of the Office of the Solicitor General at the Certiorari Stage. PhD thesis. https://tinyurl.com/yppevdte
3.
BlackRyanOwensRyan. 2011. “Solicitor General Influence and Agenda Setting on the US Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly64 (4): 765–78.
4.
BlackRyanOwensRyan. 2012a. “Looking Back to Move Forward: Quantifying Policy Predictions in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science56 (4): 802–16.
5.
BlackRyanOwensRyan. 2012b. The Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court: Executive Branch Influence and Judicial Decisions. Cambridge University Press.
6.
BlackRyanOwensRyan. 2013. “A Built-In Advantage: The Office of the Solicitor General and the US Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly66 (2): 454–66.
7.
BlackRyanOwensRyan. 2021. “TRENDS: The Influence of Personalized Knowledge at the Supreme Court: How (Some) Former Law Clerks Have the Inside Track.” Political Research Quarterly74 (4): 795–87.
8.
BlackRyanOwensRyanWedekingJustinWohlfarthPatrick. 2020. The Conscientious Justice: How Supreme Court Justices’ Personalities Influence the Law, the High Court, and the Constitution. Cambridge University Press.
9.
CaldeiraGregoryWrightJohnZornChristopher. 2012. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the US Supreme Court Revisited.” In 7th Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Paper.
10.
CaplanLincoln. 1987. The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the Rule of Law. Knopf.
11.
ClarkTom S.2009. “The Separation of Powers, Court Curbing, and Judicial Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science53 (4): 971–89.
12.
ClarkWilliam RobertsGolderMatt. 2023. Interaction Models: Specification and Interpretation. Cambridge University Press.
13.
CollinsPaulJr. 2004. “Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in US Supreme Court Litigation.” Law & Society Review38 (4): 807–32.
14.
CollinsToddCooperChristopher. 2012. “Case Salience and Media Coverage of Supreme Court Decisions: Toward a New Measure.” Political Research Quarterly65 (2): 396–47.
15.
CotaMatthewHoustonRachaelLaneElizabethSchoenherrJessica. NP. “All the Cases that Are Fit to (Maybe) Print: Media Coverage of the United States SupremeCourt.” https://tinyurl.com/2ff765jw
16.
CovertDarcyWangAnnie. 2021. “The Loudest Voice at the Supreme Court: The Solicitor General’s Dominance of Amicus Oral Argument.” Vanderbilt Law Review74: 681.
17.
EpsteinLeeMartinAndrewSegalJeffreyWesterlandChad. 2007. “The Judicial Common Space.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization23 (2): 303–25.
18.
GarnerBryanRobertsJohnRobertsJohn G.Jr. 2010. “Interviews with United States Supreme Court Justices.” The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing13: 5–4.
19.
GoelzhauserGregKassowBenjaminDouglasRice. 2022. “Measuring Supreme Court Case Complexity.” The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization38 (1): 92–18.
20.
HazeltonMorganHinkleRachael. 2022. Persuading the Supreme Court: The Significance of Briefs in Judicial Decision-Making. University Press of Kansas.
21.
HazeltonMorganHinkleRachaelSpriggsJames. 2019. “The Influence of Unique Information in Briefs on Supreme Court Opinion Content.” Justice System Journal40 (2): 126–57.
22.
HoustonRachaelJohnsonTimothyEveRingsmuth. 2023. SCOTUS and COVID: How the Media Reacted to the Livestreaming of Supreme Court Oral Arguments. Rowman & Littlefield.
23.
JohnsonTimothyPaulWahlbeckSpriggsJames. 2006. “The Influence of Oral Arguments on the US Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review100 (1): 99–13.
24.
LaneElizabeth. 2022. “A Separation-Of-Powers Approach to the Supreme Court’s Shrinking Caseload.” Journal of Law and Courts10 (1): 1–12.
25.
LaneElizabethJessicaSchoenherr. NP. “Make it Simple: How Targeted Appeals Reduce Judicial Workloads and Win Votes.” https://tinyurl.com/4rtxu8sh
26.
LaneElizabethSchoenherr JessicaSchutte RachelBlackRyan. 2020. “2.3 Judicial Discretion and US Supreme Court Agenda Setting.” Open Judicial Politics, Rorie Spill Solberg, Eric Waltenburg, and Jennifer Segal Diascaro (eds.), 1rst edition, https://open.oregonstate.education/open-judicial-politicsOE/
27.
LemosMargaretWidissDeborah. 2025. “The Solicitor General, Consistency, and Credibility.” Notre Dame Law Review100 (2): 621.
28.
MaltzmanForrestPaulWahlbeck. 1996. “Strategic Policy Considerations and Voting Fluidity on the Burger Court.” American Political Science Review90 (3): 581–92.
29.
MarasciulloJanene. 1988. “Removability and the Rule of Law: The Independence of the Solicitor General.” George Washington Law Review57: 750.
30.
McAteeAndreaMcGuireKevin. 2007. “Lawyers, Justices, and Issue Salience: When and How Do Legal Arguments Affect the US Supreme Court?” Law & Society Review41 (2): 259–78.
31.
McGuireKevin. 1995. “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success.” The Journal of Politics57 (1): 187–96.
32.
McGuireKevinVanbergGeorgYanusAlixandra. 2007. “Targeting the Median Justice: A Content Analysis of Legal Arguments and Judicial Opinions.” In Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans. https://tinyurl.com/3jxsrcsj
33.
NelsonMichaelEpsteinLee. 2022. “Human Capital in Court: The Role of Attorney Experience in US Supreme Court Litigation.” Journal of Law and Courts10 (1): 61–5.
34.
PacelleRichard. 2003. Between Law and Politics: The Solicitor General and the Structuring of Race, Gender, and Reproductive Rights Litigation. Texas A&M University Press. Number 14.
35.
PacelleRichardCurryBrett W.MarshallBryan W.. 2011. Decision Making by the Modern Supreme Court. Cambridge University Press.
36.
SchoenherrJessicaWaterburyNicholas. 2022. “Confessions at the Supreme Court: Judicial Response to Solicitor General Error.” Journal of Law and Courts10 (1): 13–6.
37.
ScottJamilLaneElizabethSchoenherrJessica. 2024. “You Better Shop Around: Litigant Characteristics and Supreme Court Support.” Journal of Politics. https://tinyurl.com/yts3fknk
38.
SegalJeffreyWesterlandChadLindquistStefanie. 2011. “Congress, the Supreme Court, and Judicial Review: Testing a Constitutional Separation of Powers Model.” American Journal of Political Science55 (1): 89–104.
39.
SheehanReginaldMishlerWilliamSongerDonald. 1992. “Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties before the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review86 (2): 464–71.
40.
SpaethHaroldEpsteinLeeMartinAndrewSegalJeffreyRugerTheodoreBeneshSara. 2021. “The U.S. Supreme Court Justices Database, Release 01.” https://Supremecourtdatabase.org
41.
ThompsonDavidWachtellMelanie. 2008. “An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures: the Call for Response and the Call for the Views of the Solicitor General.” George Mason Law Review16: 237.
42.
VoldenCraig. 2002. “A Formal Model of the Politics of Delegation in a Separation of Powers System.” American Journal of Political Science46: 111–33.
43.
WedekingJustin. 2010. “Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing.” American Journal of Political Science54 (3): 617–31.
44.
WohlfarthPatrick. 2009. “The Tenth Justice? Consequences of Politicization in the Solicitor General’s Office.” The Journal of Politics71 (1): 224–37.
45.
ZornChristopher. 2002. “US Government Litigation Strategies in the Federal Appellate Courts.” Political Research Quarterly55 (1): 145–66.
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.
