In the process of case selection in the U.S. Supreme Court, lawyers try to secure space on the justices' plenary agenda; through briefs amicus curiae, interest groups try to advance their policy views. Thus, both seek access to the Court. What brings lawyers and organized interests together? In this article, I develop a model which examines when and why lawyers who represent petitioners build coalitions with groups. Using survey data from the 1986-87 Term of the Court, I show that lawyers-particularly lawyers with expertise in the agenda setting process-actively recruit the support of interests as amici curiae. Solicitation of amici most often occurs when lawyers and interest groups share similar goals, specifically, the desire for the justices to speak authoritatively on an issue of national importance. Con sistent with the literature on organized interests, the results serve to explain why so few lawyers seek the support of amici curiae, despite their impact on the justices' decision making.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aldrich, John H., and Forrest D. Nelson .1984Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models. Beverly Hills: Sage.
2.
Baker, Stewart A.1984. "A Practical Guide to Certiorari." Catholic University Law Review33: 611-32.
3.
Barker, Lucius J.1967. "Third Parties in Litigation: A Systemic View of the Judicial Function." Journal of Politics29: 41-69.
4.
Berry, Jeffrey M.1989. The Interest Group Society. Boston : Little, Brown.
5.
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.
6.
_ . 1989. "Why Organized Interests Participate as Amici Curiae in the U.S. Supreme Court." Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta.
7.
_ . 1990. "Amici Curiae before the Supreme Court: Who Participates, When, and How Much?" Joumal of Politics52: 782-806.
8.
Casper, Jonathan D.1972. Lawyers before the Warren Court: Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, 1957-1966. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
9.
Ennis, Bruce J.1984. "Effective Amicus Briefs." Catholic University Law Review33: 603-9.
10.
Epstein, Lee.1985. Conservatives in Court. Knoxville : University of Tennessee Press.
11.
Epstein, Lee, and Karen O'Connor.1988. "States and the U.S. Supreme Court: An Examination of Litigation Outcomes." Social Science Quarterly68: 660-74.
12.
Frey, Andrew L., Kenneth S. Geller, and Daniel Harris.1987. "Opposing Review: The Art of Finding 'Uncertworthiness.' " Inside Litigation1: 27-30.
13.
Galanter, Marc. 1974. "Why the 'Haves' Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change." Law and Society Review9: 95-160.
14.
George, Tracey E., and Lee Epstein.1992. "On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making." American Political Science Review86: 323-37.
15.
Heinz, John P, and Edward O. Laumann .1982. Chicago Lawyers: The Social Structure of the Bar. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
16.
Irons, Peter H.1982. The New Deal Lawyers. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
17.
Kluger, Richard.1975. Simple Justice: The History ofBrownv. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality. New York: Knopf.
18.
Krislov, Samuel.1963. "The Amicus Curiae Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy ." Yale Law Journal72: 694-721.
19.
Lawrence, Susan E.1990. The Poor in Court: The Legal Services Program and Supreme Court Decision Making. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
McGuire, Kevin T.1993. The Supreme Court Bar: Legal Elites in the Washington Community. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
21.
O'Connor, Karen.1980. Women's Organizations' Use of the Courts. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
22.
O'Connor, Karen, and Lee Epstein.1982. "Amicus Curiae Participation in the U.S. Supreme Court: An Appraisal of Hakman's Folklore." Law and Society Review16: 311-20.
23.
Perry, H.W., Jr.1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
Roberts, John G., Jr.1993. "Riding the Coattails of the Solicitor General." The Legal Times29 (March): 30-31.
25.
Scheaffer, Richard L., William Mendenhall, and Lyman Ott.1986. Elementary Survey Sampling. 3rd ed. Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company .
26.
Schlozman, Kay L., and John T. Tierney .1986. Organized Interests and American Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
27.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cheryl D. Reedy .1988. "The Supreme Court and Sex Discrimination: The Role of the Solicitor General." Western Political Quarterly41: 553-68.
28.
Sorauf, Frank J.1976. The Wall of Separation: The Constitutional Politics of Church and State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
Stem, Robert H., Eugene Gressman, and Stephen M. Shapiro.1986. Supreme Court Practice. 6th ed. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
30.
Truman, David B.1951. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York: Knopf .
31.
Twiss, Benjamin R.1942. Lawyers and the Constitution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
United States Law Week. 1987. 11 August.
33.
Vose, Clement E.1959. Caucasians Only. Berkeley: University of California Press.
