Focusing on litigators or amicus curiae, a significant amount of scholarship has examined the impact of information on Supreme Court decision making. Taking into account that justices have varying degrees of substantive expertise across issues, we model the interaction of justice expertise with these external sources of information. Specifically, we test whether justices are more likely to be influenced by attorney capability in cases where they have less substantive legal expertise. We also explore whether justices’ reliance on amici is conditional on their own expertise, as well as the overall quality of the litigants’ attorneys. As anticipated, this research finds that as the justice’s legal expertise increases, the influence of attorney capability tends to decrease. Moreover, as the expertise of the judge and/or the quality of the attorneys increase, the impact of amici tends to decrease.
AdcockR.CollierD. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review, 95, 529-546.
2.
AiC.NortonE. C. (2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economic Letters, 80, 123-129.
3.
BaumL. (2009). Probing the effects of judicial specialization. Duke Law Journal, 58, 1667-1684.
4.
BlackR. C.OwensR. J. (2012). A built-in advantage: The Office of the Solicitor General and the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 66, 454-466. doi:10.1177/1065912912447995
CaldeiraG. A.WrightJ. R. (1988). Organized interests and agenda setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 82, 1109-1127.
7.
CollinsP. 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.
8.
CollinsP. M.Jr. (2008a). Amici curiae and dissensus on the U.S. Supreme Court. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 5, 143-170.
9.
CollinsP. M.Jr. (2008b). Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest groups and judicial decision making. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
10.
CorleyP. (2008). The Supreme Court and opinion content: The influence of parties’ briefs. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 468-478.
11.
EpsteinL.KnightJ. (1999). Mapping out the strategic terrain: The informational role of amici curiae. In ClaytonC.GillmanH. (Eds.), Supreme Court decision-making: New institutionalist approaches (pp. 215-236). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
12.
EpsteinL.SegalJ. A. (2000). Measuring issue salience. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 66-83.
13.
EpsteinL.WalkerT. G. (1995). Constitutional law for a changing America: Rights, liberties, and justice. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
14.
FiskeS. T.TaylorS. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
15.
FriestadM.WrightP. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1-31.
16.
GalanterM. (1974). Why the “haves” come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law & Society Review, 9, 95-160.
17.
GeorgeT. E.EpsteinL. (1992). On the nature of Supreme Court decision making. American Political Science Review, 86, 323-337.
18.
GreeneW. H. (2000). Econometric analysis (4th ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
19.
HaireS. B.LindquistS. A.HartleyR. (1999). Attorney expertise, litigant success, and judicial decisionmaking in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Law & Society Review, 33, 667-685.
20.
HahnP. W.ClaytonS. D. (1996). The effects of attorney presentation style, attorney gender, and juror gender on juror decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 533-554.
21.
HallR. L.DeardorffA. V. (2006). Lobbying as legislative subsidy. American Political Science Review, 100, 69-84.
22.
HansenJ. M. (1991). Gaining access: Congress and the farm lobby, 1919-1981. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
HansfordT. G. (2004). Information provision, organizational constraints, and the decision to submit an amicus brief in a U.S. Supreme Court case. Political Research Quarterly, 52, 219-230.
24.
HasianM. A.Jr.Parry-GilesT. (1997). “A stranger to its laws”: Freedom, civil rights, and the legal ambiguity of Romer v. Evans (1996). Argumentation and Advocacy, 34, 27-42.
25.
HaynieS. L.SillK. L. (2007). Experienced advocates and litigation outcomes: Repeat players in the South African Supreme Court of Appeal. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 443-453.
26.
IversG.O’ConnorK. (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, 1967-1982. Law & Policy, 9, 161-178.
27.
JohnsonT. R. (2004). Oral arguments and decision making on the United States Supreme Court. Albany: State University of New York Press.
28.
JohnsonT. R.WahlbeckP. J.SpriggsJ. F. (2006). The influence of oral arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 100, 99-113.
29.
KleinD. E. (2002). Making law in the United States Courts of Appeals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
KumkaleG. T.AlbarracínD.SeignourelP. J. (2010). The effects of source credibility in the presence or absence of prior attitudes: Implications for the design of persuasive communication campaigns. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1325-1356.
31.
LindquistS. A.SolbergR. S. (2007). Judicial review by the Burger and Rehnquist courts: Explaining justices’ responses to constitutional challenges. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 71-90.
32.
LongJ. S.FreeseJ. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata (2nd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
33.
LupiaA. (2002). Who can persuade whom?: Implications from the nexus of psychology and rational choice theory. In KuklinskiJ. (Ed.), Thinking about political psychology (pp. 51-88). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34.
MaltzmanF.WahlbeckP. J. (2004). A conditional model of opinion assignment on the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 551-563.
35.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
36.
MartinA. D.QuinnK. M. (2002). Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carol for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999. Political Analysis, 10, 134-153.
37.
McAteeA.McGuireK. T. (2007). Lawyers, justice, and issue salience: When and how do legal arguments affect the U.S. Supreme Court?Law & Society Review, 41, 259-278.
38.
McAuliffB. D.EllisL.PhillipsM. (2011). Mayit please the Court… A social cognitive primer on persuasion in legal contexts. In WienerR.BornsteinB. (Eds.), Handbook of trial consulting (pp. 33-62). New York, NY: Springer.
39.
McGuireK. T. (1990). Obscenity, libertarian values and decision making in the Supreme Court. American Politics Research, 18, 47-67.
40.
McGuireK. T. (1993). The Supreme Court bar: Legal elites in the Washington community. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
41.
McGuireK. T. (1995). Repeat players in the Supreme Court: The role of experienced lawyers in litigation success. Journal of Politics, 57, 187-196.
42.
McGuireK. T. (1998). Explaining executive success on the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 595-626.
43.
McGuireK. T. (2000). Lobbyists, revolving doors and the U.S. Supreme Court. Journal of Law & Politics, 16, 113-137.
44.
McGuireK. T.CaldeiraG. A. (1993). Lawyers, organized interests, and the law of obscenity: Agenda setting in the Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 87, 717-726.
45.
McGuireK. T.PalmerB. (1995). Issue fluidity on the United States Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 89, 691-702.
46.
MillerM. O.MauetT. (2011). The psychology of jury persuasion. American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 22, 549-570.
47.
MyersD. G. (2008). Social psychology (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
48.
NelsonT. E.OxleyZ. M.ClawsonR. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19, 221-246.
49.
Order of the Coif. (1991). Directory of the Order of the Coif. Los Angeles, CA: The Order of the Coif.
50.
RatneshwarS.ChaikenS. (1991). Comprehension’s role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 52-62.
51.
SalokarR. M. (1992). The Solicitor General: The politics of law. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
52.
SegalJ. A. (1990). Supreme Court support for the Solicitor General: The effect of presidential appointments. Western Political Quarterly, 43, 137-152.
53.
SegalJ. A.CoverA. D. (1989). Ideological values and the votes of U.S. Supreme Court justices. American Political Science Review, 83, 557-565.
54.
SegalJ. A.ReedyC. D. (1988). The Supreme Court and sex discrimination: The role of the Solicitor General. Western Political Quarterly, 41, 553-568.
55.
SegalJ. A.SpaethH. J. (1993). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
56.
SegalJ. A.SpaethH. J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
57.
SimardL. S. (2008). An empirical study of amici curiae in federal courts: A fine balance of access, efficiency, and adversarialism. Review of Litigation, 27, 669-711.
58.
SlotnickE. E. (1983). Federal trial and appellate judges: How do they differ?Western Political Quarterly, 36, 570-578.
59.
SongerD. R.KuerstenA.KahenyE. B. (2000). Why the haves don’t always come out ahead: Repeat players meet amici curiae for the disadvantaged. Political Research Quarterly, 53, 537-556.
60.
SongerD. R.SheehanR. S. (1992). Who wins on appeal? Upperdogs and underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 235-258.
61.
SongerD. R.SheehanR. S. (1993). Interest group success in the courts: Amicus participation in the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 339-354.
62.
SongerD. R.SheehanR. S.HaireS. B. (1999). Do the “haves” come out ahead over time? Applying Galanter’s framework to decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 1925-1988. Law & Society Review, 33, 811-832.
SparksJ. R.AreniC. S. (2008). Style versus substance: Multiple roles of language power in persuasion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 37-60.
65.
SpriggsJ. F.IIWahlbeckP. J. (1997). Amicus curiae and the role of information at the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 365-386.
66.
SzmerJ. J. (2005). Unequal justice under law? The effects of party and attorney capability on United States Supreme Court decision making (Doctoral Dissertation). University of South Carolina, Columbia.
67.
SzmerJ. J.JohnsonS. W.SarverT. A. (2007). Does the lawyer matter? Influencing outcomes on the Supreme Court of Canada. Law & Society Review, 41, 279-304.
68.
SzmerJ. J.KahenyE. B.SarverT. A. (2010). Have we come a long way baby?: The influence of attorney gender on Supreme Court decision making. Politics & Gender, 6, 1-36.
69.
TanenhausJ.SchickM.MuraskinM.RosenD. (1963). The Supreme Court’s certiorari jurisdiction: Cue theory. In SchubertG. (Ed.), Judicial decision-making (pp. 111-132). New York, NY: Free Press.
70.
TormalaZ. L.BrinolP.PettyR. E. (2007). Multiple roles for source credibility under high elaboration: It’s all in the timing. Social Cognition, 25, 536-552.
71.
TormalaZ. L.PettyR. E. (2004). Source credibility and attitude certainty: A metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 427-442.
72.
WahlbeckP. J. (1997). The life of the law: Judicial politics and legal change. Journal of Politics, 59, 778-802.
73.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989).
74.
WrightsmanL. S. (2010). Persuasion in the decision making of U.S. Supreme Court justices. In KleinD.MitchellG. (Eds.), The psychology of judicial decision making (pp. 57-72). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
75.
ZukG.BarrowD. J.GryskiG. S. (2004). A multi-user database on the attributes of U.S. Courts of Appeals Judges, 1801-2000 (NSF Grant # SBR-93–11999). Retrieved from http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/poli/juri/attributes.htm
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.
