Over the past two decades there has been a rapid increase in the number of amicus curiae briefs filed in the Supreme Court. Some cases studied suggest that these briefs may have a substantial effect on the Supreme Court's decisions, but no systematic studies have examined the efficacy of such briefs. The present study utilizes a precision matching strategy to determine if litigants supported by amici have a greater chance of success in the Supreme Court than comparable litigants in matched pairs who have no amicus support. The analysis uncovers no evidence that support from amici substantially increases the chance of success of the supported litigants.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barker, Lucious.1967. "Third Parties in Litigation: A Systematic View of Judicial Function." Journal of Politics29: 41.
2.
Bradley, Robert, and Paul Gardner.1985. "Underdogs, Upperdogs and the Use of the Amicus Brief: Trends and Explanations." Justice System Journal10: 78-95.
3.
Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright.1988. "Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court." American Political Science Review82: 1109-27.
4.
—. 1990. "Amici Curiae before the Supreme Court: Who Participates, When and How Much?"Journal of Politics52: 782-806.
5.
Cortner, Richard C.1968. "Strategies and Tactics of Litigants in Constitutional Cases." Journal ofPublic Law17: 287.
6.
Dudley, Robert L.1989. "State High Court Decision Making in Pornography Cases ." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA.
7.
Ennis, Bruce L.1984. "Effective Amicus Briefs." Catholic University Law Review33: 603-609.
8.
Epstein, Lee.1985. Conservatives in Court. Nashville : University of Tennessee Press.
9.
—. 1991. "Courts and Interest Groups." In John B. Gates and Charles A. Johnson, The American Courts: A Critical AssessmentWashington, DC: CQ Press.
10.
Epstein, Lee, and C.K. Rowland.1991. "Debunking the Myth of Interest Group Invincibility in the Courts." American Political Science Review85: 205-17.
11.
Galanter, Marc. 1974. "Why the Haves' Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Social Change. Law and Society Review9: 95-160.
12.
Hagle, Timothy M.1989. "Constitutional Decision Making: The Obscenity Decisions of the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association , Atlanta, GA.
13.
Ivers, Gregg, and Karen O'Connor.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 and Policy9: 161-78.
14.
Kobylka, Joseph F.1987. "A Court-Created Context for Groups Litigation: Libertarian Groups and Obscenity." Journal of Politics49: 1061-78.
15.
Manwaring, David.1962. Render Unto Caesar. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
16.
McGuire, Kevin T.1990. "Obscenity, Libertarian Values and Decision Making in the Supreme Court." American Politics Quarterly18: 47-67.
17.
O'Connor, Karen.1983. "The Amicus Curiae Role of the U.S. Solicitor General In Supreme Court Litigation." Judicature66: 256-64.
18.
O'Connor, Karen, and Lee Epstein.1982. "Amicus Participation in the U.S. Supreme Court: An Appraisal of Hakman's Folklore." Law and Society Review16: 311-20.
19.
—. 1983a. "Sex and the Supreme Court: An Analysis of Judicial Support for Gender Based Claims." Social Science Quarterly64: 327-31.
20.
—. 1983b. "The Rise of Conservative Interest Group Litigation ." Journal of Politics45: 479-89.
21.
Pfeffer, Leo.1981. "Amici in Church-State Litigation." Law and Contemporary Problems44: 83.
22.
Puro, Steven.1981. "The United States as Amicus Curiae." In Sydney Ulmer, ed, Courts, Law and Judicial Processes. New York: Free Press.
23.
Rohde, David, and Harold Spaeth.1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
24.
Segal, Jeffrey A.1984. "Predicting Supreme Court Cases Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases, 1962-1981." American Political Science Review78: 891-900.
25.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Albert Cover.1989. "Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices." American Political Science Review83: 557-65.
26.
Sheehan, Reginald S., William Mishler, and Donald R. Songer.1992. "Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court." American Political Science Review86: 464-71.
27.
Songer, Donald R., and Reginald S. Sheehan .1990. "The Impact of Amicus Briefs on Decisions on the Merits." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.
28.
—. 1992. "Who Wins On Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals."American Journal of Political Science36: 235-58.
29.
Tate, C. Neal.1981. "Personal Attribute Models of Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economics Decisions, 1945-1978." American Political Science Review75: 355-67.
30.
Truman, David.1951. The Governmental ProcessNew York: Knopf.
31.
Vose, Clement.1958. "Litigation as a form of Pressure Groups Activity." Annals of the Academy of AmericanPolitical Science20: 319.
32.
Wheeler, Stanton, Bliss Cartwright, Robert Kagan , and Lawrence Friedman .1987. "Do the Haves Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970" Law and Society Review21: 403-45.
33.
Walker, Thomas G., and Deborah J. Barrow .1985. "The Diversification of the Federal Bench: Policy and Process Ramifications." Journal of Politics47: 596-617.
34.
Wolpert, Robin M.1991. "Explaining and Predicting Supreme Court Decision-Making: The Gender Discrimination Cases, 1971-1987." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association , Chicago.
