Over the past 30 years, the U.S. states have increased their participation as amici curiae significantly, in addition to winning more of their cases as direct parties. However, little attention has been paid to the factors that cause amici participation rates to vary among the states. The author examines the decision of state attorneys general (AGs) to initiate or join amicus curiae briefs in all 253 U.S. Supreme Court criminal procedure cases from 1990 through 2001. He hypothesizes that AGs are motivated largely by their own policy preferences and by their motivation to get reelected. Because amicus briefs are not particularly high-profile policy tools, reelection motivations ought to be demonstrated through responsiveness to elites in state government. The findings provide less support for this idea and more support for the idea that state AGs follow their own policy preferences through amicus participation.
Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico. 1982. 458 U.S. 592.
2.
BakerStewart A.AspergerJames R.1982. “Foreword: Toward a Center for State and Local Legal Advocacy.” Catholic University Law Review31:367–73.
3.
CaldeiraGregory A.WrightJohn R.1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review82:1109–27.
4.
CaldeiraGregory A.WrightJohn R.1990. “Amici Curiae before the Supreme Court: Who Participates, When, and How Much?” The Journal of Politics52:782–806.
5.
ClaytonCornell W.1994. “Law, Politics and the New Federalism: State Attorneys General as National Policymakers.” Review of Politics56:525–53.
6.
ClaytonCornell W.McGuireJack. 2001. “State Litigation Strategies and Policymaking in the U.S. Supreme Court.” Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy11:17–35.
7.
CollinsPaul M.Jr.2004. “Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation.” Law and Society Review38:807–32.
8.
ConlanTimothy J.1991. “And the Beat Goes On: Intergovernmental Mandates and Preemption in an Era of Deregulation.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism21:43–57.
9.
DavidsJustin G.2005. “State Attorneys General and the Client-Attorney Relationship: Establishing the Power to Sue State Officers.” Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems38:365–414.
10.
EnnisBruce L.1984. “Effective Amicus Briefs.” Catholic University Law Review33:603–9.
11.
EpsteinLeeSegalJeffrey A.JohnsonTimothy. 1996. “The Claim of Issue Creation on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review90:845–52.
12.
EpsteinLeeSegalJeffrey A.SpaethHarold J.WalkerThomas G.2003. The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions and Developments. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
13.
Gideon v. Wainwright. 1962. 372 U.S. 335.
14.
GormleyWilliam T.Jr.1983. “Policy, Politics and Public Utility Regulation.” American Journal of Political Science27:86–105.
15.
HansfordThomas G.2004. “Information Provision, Organizational Constraints and the Decision to File an Amicus Brief in a U.S. Supreme Court Case.” Political Research Quarterly57:219–30.
16.
HowardA. E. Dick. 1982. “The States and the Supreme Court.” Catholic University Law Review31:375–438.
17.
KearneyJoseph D.MerrillThomas W.2000. “The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review148:743–855.
18.
KearneyRichard C.SheehanReginald S.1992. “Supreme Court Decision-Making: The Impact of Court Composition on State and Local Government Litigation.” Journal of Politics54:1008–25.
19.
KincaidJohn. 1990. “From Cooperative to Coercive Federalism.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science509:139–52.
20.
KingGaryZengLangche. 2001. “Explaining Rare Events in International Relations.” International Organization55:693–715.
21.
MartinekWendy L.2006. “Amicus Curiae in the United States Courts of Appeals.” American Politics Research34:803–24.
22.
MorrisThomas R.1987. “States before the U.S. Supreme Court: State Attorneys General as Amicus Curiae.” Judicature70:298–306.
23.
O’BrienDavid M.1995. Constitutional Law and Politics, Volume 1: Struggles for Power and Governmental Accountability. New York: Norton.
24.
O’ConnorKaren. 1983. “The Amicus Curiae Role of the U.S. Solicitor General in Supreme Court Litigation.” Judicature66:256–64.
25.
O’ConnorKarenEpsteinLee. 1983. “Court Rules and Workload: A Case Study of Rules Governing Amicus Curiae Participation.” Justice System Journal8:35–45.
26.
PalmerJan. 1982. “An Econometric Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Certiorari Decisions.” Public Choice39:387–98.
27.
PritchettC. Herman. 1948. The Roosevelt Court. New York: Macmillan.
28.
ProvineDoris. 1980. Case Selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
ProvostColin. 2003. “State Attorneys General, Entrepreneurship, and Consumer Protection in the New Federalism.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism33:37–53.
30.
ProvostColin. 2006. “The Politics of Consumer Protection: Explaining State Attorney General Participation in Multi-State Lawsuits.” Political Research Quarterly59:609–18.
31.
ProvostColin. 2010. “An Integrated Model of U.S. State Attorney General Behavior in Multi-State Litigation.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly10:1–24.
32.
RohdeDavid W.SpaethHarold J.1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: Freeman.
33.
RossLynne. ed. 1990. State Attorneys General: Powers and Responsibilities. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
34.
SalokarRebecca M.1987. “The Solicitor General before the Supreme Court, 1959–1982: A Descriptive Analysis.” Presented at the 1987 Meeting of the Law and Society Association, Washington, DC.
SegalJeffrey A.1988. “Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General during the Warren and Burger Courts.” Western Political Quarterly41:135–44.
37.
SegalJeffrey A.ReedyCheryl D.1988. “The Supreme Court and Sex Discrimination: The Role of the Solicitor General.” Western Political Quarterly41:553–68.
38.
SegalJeffrey A.SpaethHarold J.1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39.
SegalJeffrey A.SpaethHarold J.2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40.
SolbergRorie SpillRayLeonard. 2005. “Capacity, Attitudes and Case Attributes: The Differential Success of the States before the United States Courts of Appeals.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly5:147–67.
41.
SongerDonald R.1979. “Concern for Policy Outputs as a Cue for Supreme Court Decisions on Certiorari.” The Journal of Politics41:1185–94.
42.
SongerDonald R.HaireSusan. 1992. “Integrating Alternative Approaches to the Study of Judicial Voting: Obscenity Cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political Science36:963–82.
43.
SongerDonald R.SheehanReginald S.1993. “Interest Group Success in the Courts: Amicus Participation in the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly46:339–54.
44.
SpillRorie L.LicariMichael J.RayLeonard. 2001. “Taking on Tobacco: Policy Entrepreneurship and the Tobacco Litigation.” Political Research Quarterly54:605–22.
45.
SpriggsJames F.IIWahlbeckPaul J.1997. “Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information on the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly50:365–86.
46.
State of Florida ex rel. Shevin v. Exxon Corp. 1976. 526 F.2d 266 (5th Circuit).
47.
SwinertonE. Nelson. 1968. “Ambition and American State Executives.” Midwest Journal of Political Science12:538–49.
48.
TanenhausJosephSchickMarvinMuraskinMatthewRosenDaniel. 1963. “The Supreme Court’s Certiorari Jurisdiction: Cue Theory.” In Judicial Decision Making, ed. SchubertGlendon. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 111–32.
49.
UlmerS. Sidney. 1972. “The Decision to Grant Certiorari as an Indicator to Decision ‘on the Merits.’” Polity4:429–47.
50.
UlmerS. Sidney. 1984. “The Supreme Court’s Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a Predictive Variable.” American Political Science Review78:901–11.
51.
UlmerS. SidneyWillisonDavid. 1985. “The Solicitor General as Amicus Curiae in the Supreme Court, 1969–1983 Terms.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA.
52.
WaltenburgEric N.SwinfordBill. 1999. Litigating Federalism: The States before the U.S. Supreme Court. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
53.
WordenAlison. 1990. “Policy Making by Prosecutors: The Uses of Discretion in Regulating Plea Bargaining.” Judicature73:335–40.
54.
ZornChristopher. 2001. “Generalized Estimating Equation Models for Correlated Data: A Review with Applications.” American Journal of Political Science45:470–90.
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.
