We contribute to the literature on political psychology, interest groups, and judicial decision making by examining whether ideology mediates the effect of amicus curiae briefs on decision making in the U.S. courts of appeals. Using an original data set, we find evidence that moderate and conservative judges are influenced by amicus briefs, but that liberal judges do not respond to these persuasion attempts. We conclude that this form of interest group lobbying influences judicial decision making by at least some judges and that understanding the efficacy of this interest group strategy requires an appreciation of how political actors process persuasive information.
AiC.NortonE. C. (2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters, 80, 123-129.
2.
AldrichJ. H.NelsonF. D. (1984). Linear probability, logit, and probit models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3.
AndersonS. E.HarbridgeL. (2014). The policy consequences of motivated information processing among the partisan elite. American Politics Research, 42, 700-728.
4.
BaileyM. A.KamoieB.MaltzmanF. (2005). Signals from the tenth justice: The political role of the solicitor general in Supreme Court decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 72-85.
5.
BartelsB. L. (2012). Psychological approaches to judicial behavior: Opportunities and challenges. Law and Courts, 22, 29-32.
6.
Box-SteffensmeierJ. M.ChristensonD. P.HittM. P. (2013). Quality over quantity: Amici influence and judicial decision making. American Political Science Review, 107, 433-445.
7.
BramanE. (2009). Law, politics, and perception: How policy preferences influence legal reasoning. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
8.
BramanE.NelsonT. E. (2007). Mechanism of motivated reasoning? Analogical perception in discrimination disputes. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 1021-1044.
BrandtP. T.SchneiderC. J. (2007). So the reviewer told you to use a selection model? Selection models and the study of international relations. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at Dallas.
11.
BryskA. (1995). “Hearts and minds”: Bringing symbolic politics back in. Polity, 27, 559-585.
12.
CaldeiraG. A.WrightJ. R. (1988). Organized interests and agenda setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 82, 1109-1127.
13.
CalderB.InskoC. A.YandellB. (1974). The relation of cognitive and memorial processes to persuasion in a simulated jury trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 62-93.
14.
CameronC. M.SegalJ. A.SongerD. (2000). Strategic auditing in a political hierarchy: An informational model of the Supreme Court’s certiorari decisions. American Political Science Review, 94, 101-116.
15.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
16.
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
17.
ChaikenS. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In ZannaM. P.OlsonJ. M.HermanC. P. (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5) (pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
CollinsP. M.Jr. (2007). Lobbyists before the U.S. Supreme Court: Investigating the influence of amicus curiae briefs. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 55-70.
20.
CollinsP. M.Jr. (2008a). Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest groups and judicial decision making. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21.
CollinsP. M.Jr. (2008b). Transforming the United States courts of appeals databases in Stata. Law and Courts, 18, 19-22.
22.
CollinsP. M.Jr.CorleyP. C.HamnerJ. (2013, April). The influence of amicus curiae briefs on U.S. Supreme Court opinion content. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
23.
CollinsP. M.Jr.CorleyP. C.HamnerJ. (2014). Me too? An investigation of repetition in U.S. Supreme Court amicus curiae briefs. Judicature, 97, 228-234.
24.
CollinsP. M.Jr.MartinekW. L. (2010a). Friends of the circuits: Interest group influence on the U.S. courts of appeals. Social Science Quarterly, 91, 397-414.
25.
CollinsP. M.Jr.MartinekW. L. (2010b). Who participates as amici curiae in the U.S. courts of appeals?Judicature, 94, 128-136.
26.
CollinsP. M.Jr.MartinekW. L. (2011). The small group context: Designated district court judges in the United States courts of appeals. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8, 177-205.
27.
CollinsP. M.Jr.SolowiejL. A. (2007). Interest group participation, competition, and conflict in the U.S. Supreme Court. Law & Social Inquiry, 32, 955-984.
28.
CranoW. D.PrislinR. (2006). Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 345-374.
29.
EastonD. (1953). The political system: An inquiry into the state of political science. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
30.
EpsteinL.MartinA. D.SegalJ. A.WesterlandC. (2007). The judicial common space. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 23, 303-325.
31.
GalanterM. (1974). Why the “haves” come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law & Society Review, 9, 95-160.
32.
GeorgeT. E. (1999). The dynamics and determinants of the decision to grant en banc review. Washington Law Review, 74, 213-274.
33.
GibsonJ. L. (1997). United States Supreme Court judicial database, phase II: 1953–1993. Houston, TX: University of Houston [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].
34.
GilesM. W.HettingerV. A.PeppersT. (2001). Picking federal judges: A note on policy and partisan selection agendas. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 623-641.
35.
GilesM. W.HettingerV. A.ZornC.PeppersT. (2007). The etiology of the occurrence of en banc review in the U.S. courts of appeals. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 449-463.
36.
GilesM. W.WalkerT. G.ZornC. (2006). Setting a judicial agenda: The decision to grant en banc review in the U.S. courts of appeals. Journal of Politics, 68, 852-866.
37.
GilesM. W.ZornC. (2000). Gibson versus cased-based approaches: Concurring in part, dissenting in part. Law and Courts, 10, 10-16.
38.
GruenfeldD. H. (1995). Status, ideology, and integrative complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 5-20.
39.
GuthrieC.RachlinskiJ. J.WistrichA. J. (2007). Blinking on the bench: How judges decide cases. Cornell Law Review, 93, 1-43.
40.
HagleT. M.SpaethH. J. (2009). The presence of lower-court amici as an aspect of Supreme Court agenda setting. Justice System Journal, 30, 1-12.
41.
HaireS. B.LindquistS. A.SongerD. R. (2003). Appellate court supervision in the federal judiciary: A hierarchical perspective. Law & Society Review, 37, 143-168.
42.
HeckmanJ. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153-161.
43.
HettingerV. A.LindquistS. A.MartinekW. L. (2006). Judging on a collegial court: Influences on federal appellate decision making. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
44.
HovlandC. I.JanisI. L.KelleyH. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
45.
HowardW.Jr. (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.
46.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.
47.
KearneyJ. D.MerrillT. W. (2000). The influence of amicus curiae briefs on the Supreme Court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 148, 743-853.
48.
KeeleD. M.MalmsheimerR. M.FloydD. W.ZhangL. (2009). An analysis of ideological effects in published versus unpublished judicial opinions. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6, 213-239.
49.
KochJ. W. (2008). Campaign advertisements’ impact on voter certainty and knowledge of House candidates’ ideological positions. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 609-621.
50.
KrislovS. (1963). The amicus curiae brief: From friendship to advocacy. Yale Law Journal, 72, 694-721.
51.
KuerstenA. K.HaireS. B. (2007). Update to the appeals court data base (1997-2002). Department of Political Science, Western Michigan University. Retrieved from http://www.cas.sc.edu/poli/juri/appct.htm
52.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
53.
LeboM. J.CassinoD. (2007). The aggregated consequences of motivated reasoning and the dynamics of partisan presidential approval. Political Psychology, 28, 719-746.
54.
LodgeM.TaberC. S. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In LupiaA.McCubbinsM.PopkinsS. (Eds.), Elements of political reason (pp. 183-213). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
55.
LodgeM.TaberC. S. (2005). The automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups, and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology, 26, 455-482.
56.
LordC. G.RossL.LepperM. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
57.
LupiaA.McCubbinsM. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
58.
MartinekW. L. (2006). Amici curiae in the U.S. courts of appeals. American Politics Research, 34, 803-824.
59.
MartinekW. L. (2008). The appellate workhorses of the federal judiciary: The U.S. courts of appeals. In MillerM. C. (Ed.), Exploring judicial politics (pp. 125-139). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
60.
McIntoshW. V.ParkerP. E. (1986). Federal friends of the court: An inter-tier comparison. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park.
61.
MillerA. L.KrochikM.JostJ. T. (2010). Political ideology and persuasion: Systematic and heuristic processing among liberals and conservatives. Yale Review of Undergraduate Research in Psychology, 1, 14-28.
62.
MoeT. M. (1980). The organization of interests: Incentives and the internal dynamics of political interest groups. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
63.
NelsonT. E.GarstJ. (2005). Values-based political messages and persuasion: Relationships among speaker, recipient, and evoked values. Political Psychology, 26, 489-515.
64.
PettyR. E.BriñolP. (2008). Psychological processes underlying persuasion: A social psychological approach. Diogenes, 55, 52-67.
65.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81.
66.
PooleK. T. (1998). Recovering a basic space from a set of issue scales. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 954-993.
67.
PrimoD. M.JacobmeierM. L.MilyoJ. (2007). Estimating the impact of state policies and institutions with mixed-level data. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 7, 446-459.
68.
RedlawskD. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. Journal of Politics, 64, 1021-1044.
69.
SimardL. S. (2008). An empirical study of amici curiae in federal court: A fine balance of access, efficiency, and adversarialism. Review of Litigation, 27, 669-711.
70.
SongerD. R.SheehanR. S. (1993). Interest group success in the courts: Amicus participation in the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 339-354.
71.
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.
72.
SpriggsJ. F.IIWahlbeckP. J. (1997). Amicus curiae and the role of information at the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 365-386.
73.
TaberC. S.CannD.KucsovaS. (2009). The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior, 31, 137-155.
74.
TetlockP. E. (1983). Cognitive style and political ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 118-126.
75.
TetlockP. E.BernzweigJ.GallantJ. L. (1985). Supreme Court decision making: Cognitive style as a predictor of ideological consistency of voting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1227-1239.
76.
TigarM. E.TigarJ. B. (1999). Federal appeals: Jurisdiction and practice (3rd ed.). Eagan, MN: West.
77.
TushnetM. (1987). The NAACP’s legal strategy against segregated education, 1925-1950. Chapel Hill: North Carolina University Press.
78.
WoodW. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 539-570.
79.
ZornC.BowieJ. B. (2010). Ideological influences on decision making in the federal judicial hierarchy: An empirical assessment. Journal of Politics, 72, 1212-1221.
