Students of law and courts know a great deal about amici curiae vis-à-vis the U.S. Supreme Court. Conversely, scholars know little to nothing about amici curiae in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. This article begins to address this deficiency in our state of knowledge by examining the incidence of amici at the courts of appeals level. Drawing in part on the existing literature regarding amici in the Supreme Court, I develop a model of amicus curiae participation in the courts of appeals that arises directly from a consideration of the goals of potential amicus curiae filers. To wit, amici are interested in obtaining favorable rulings in the courts, and, hence, there will be more participation by amici in a case the more desirable that case is as a policy vehicle. An analysis relying on the data available in the U.S. Courts of Appeals Database supports this argument.
Austen-Smith, D., & Wright, J. R. (1994). Counteractive lobbying. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 25-44.
2.
Barnett, S. R. (2002). From Anastasoff to Hart to West’s federal appendix: The ground shifts under no-citation rules. Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, 4, 1-26.
3.
Bell, L. C. (2002a). Senatorial discourtesy: The Senate’s use of delay to shape the federal judiciary. Political Research Quarterly, 55, 589-607.
4.
Bell, L. C. (2002b). Warring factions: Interest groups, money, and the new politics of Senate confirmations. Columbus: Ohio University Press.
5.
Benesh, S. C. (2002). The U.S. Court of Appeals and the law of confession: Perspectives on the hierarchy of justice. New York: LFB.
6.
Bickel, A. M. (1968). The least dangerous branch: The Supreme Court at the bar of politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
7.
Caldeira, G. A., & Wright, J. R. (1988). Organized interests and agenda setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 82, 1109-1127.
8.
Cohen, J. M. (2002). Inside appellate courts: The impact of court organization on judicial decision making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
9.
Collins, P. M., Jr. (2004). Friends of the court: Examining the influence of amicus curiae participation in U.S. Supreme Court litigation. Law & Society Review, 38, 807-832.
10.
Collins, P. M., Jr. (2005). Friends of the Supreme Court: Examining the influence of interest groups in the U.S. Supreme Court, 1946-2001. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY.
11.
Comparato, S. A. (2003). Amici curiae and strategic behavior in state supreme courts. Westport, CT: Praeger.
12.
Ely, J. H. (1980). Democracy and distrust: A theory of judicial review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
Epstein, L. (1991). Courts and interest groups. In J. B. Gates & C. A. Johnson (Ed.), The American courts: A critical assessment (pp. 335-371). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
14.
Garth, L. I. (1995). Views from the federal bench: Past, present and future. Rutgers Law Review, 47, 1361-1370.
15.
George, T. E., & Solimine, M. E. (2001). Supreme Court monitoring of the United States Courts of Appeals en banc. Supreme Court Economic Review, 9, 171-204.
16.
Gujarati, D. N. (1995). Basic econometrics (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
17.
Hagle, T. M. (1993). Strategic retirements: A political model of turnover on the United States Supreme Court. Political Behavior, 15, 25-48.
18.
Hagle, T. M., & Spaeth, H. J. (2006). The presence of lower court amici as an aspect of Supreme Court agenda setting. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
19.
Haire, S. B., Lindquist, S. A., & Hartley, R. (1999). Attorney expertise, litigant success, and judicial decisionmaking in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Law & Society Review, 33, 667-685.
20.
Hansford, T. G. (2004a). Information provision, organizational constraints, and the decision to submit an amicus curiae brief in a U.S. Supreme Court case. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 219-230.
21.
Hansford, T. G. (2004b). Lobbying strategies, venue selection, and organized interest involvement at the U.S. Supreme Court. American Politics Research, 32, 170-197.
22.
Harrington, J. (2005). Amici curiae in the federal courts of appeals: How friendly are they?Case Western Law Review, 55, 667-699.
23.
Hellman, A. (2000). Getting it right: Panel error and the en banc process in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. University of California-Davis Law Review, 34, 425-469.
24.
Hettinger, V. A., Lindquist, S. A., & Martinek, W. L. (2003a). The role and impact of chief judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Justice System Journal, 24, 91-117.
25.
Hettinger, V. A., Lindquist, S. A., & Martinek, W. L. (2003b). Separate opinion writing on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. American Politics Quarterly, 31, 215-250.
26.
Hettinger, V. A., Lindquist, S. A., & Martinek, W. L. (2004). Comparing attitudinal and strategic accounts of dissenting behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 123-137.
27.
Hojnacki, M., & Kimball, D. (1998). Organized interests and the decision of whom to lobby in Congress. American Political Science Review, 92, 775-790.
28.
Hormel, H. N. (2001). Domicile for the dead: Diversity jurisdiction in wrongful death actions. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2001, 519-549.
29.
Howard, J. W. (1981). Courts of appeals in the federal judicial system: A study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
Hylton v. U.S., 3 Dall. 171 (1796).
31.
Johnson, T. R. (2004). Oral arguments and decision making on the U.S. Supreme Court. Albany: State University of New York Press.
32.
Klein, D. E. (2002). Making law in the United States Courts of Appeals. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Kuersten, A., & Songer, D. R. (2001). Decisions on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. New York: Garland.
34.
Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2003). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata (rev. ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
36.
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137 (1803).
37.
McGuire, K. T. (1995). Repeat players in the Supreme Court: The role of experienced lawyers in litigation success. Journal of Politics, 57, 187-196.
38.
McIntosh, W. V., & Parker, P. E. (1986). Federal friends of the court: An inter-tier comparison. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park.
39.
Perry, H. W., Jr. (1991). Deciding to decide: Agenda setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
Posner, R. A. (1996). The federal courts: Challenge and reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
Reddick, A. M. (1997). The applicability of legal and attitudinal models to the treatment of precedent in the courts of appeals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
42.
Sarver, T. (n.d.). Interest groups’ successes on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Unpublished manuscript, Benedictine University, Lisle, IL.
43.
Scherer, N. (2005). Scoring points: Politicians, activists, and the lower federal court appointment process. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
44.
Schiltz, P. J. (2005). Much ado about little: Explaining the sturm und drang over the citation of unpublished opinions. Washington & Lee Law Review, 62, 1429-1490.
45.
Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (1993). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
46.
Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
47.
Solimine, M. E. (1988). Ideology and en banc review. North Carolina Law Review, 67, 29-76.
48.
Songer, D. R., & Davis, S. (1990). The impact of party and region on voting decisions in the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 1955-1986. Western Political Quarterly, 43, 317-334.
49.
Songer, D. R., & Haire, S. (1992). Integrating alternative approaches to the study of judicial voting: Obscenity cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 963-982.
50.
Songer, D. R., Segal, J. A., & Cameron, C. M. (1994). The hierarchy of justice: Testing a principal-agent model of Supreme Court-circuit court interactions. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 673-696.
51.
Songer, D. R., Sheehan, R. S., & Haire, S. B. (2000). Continuity and change on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
52.
Spriggs, J. F., II, & Wahlbeck, P. J. (1995). Calling it quits: Strategic retirement on the federal courts of appeals. Political Research Quarterly, 48, 573-597.
53.
Tigar, M. E., & Tigar, J. B. (1999). Federal appeals: Jurisdiction and practice (3rd ed.). Eagan, MN: West.
54.
Voices for Choices v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company, 339 F.3d 542 (2003).
55.
Wasby, S. L. (1995). Race relations litigation in an age of complexity. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
56.
Wasby, S. L. (2004). Unpublished court of appeals decisions: A hard look at the process. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 14, 67-124.
