IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jleorg/v28yi2p286-312.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

US Supreme Court Agenda Setting and the Role of Litigant Status

Author

Listed:
  • Ryan C. Black
  • Christina L. Boyd

Abstract

Whether the "haves" come out ahead of the "have nots" in the judicial process is a topic of great interest for scholars of the judiciary. Although studies of lower courts have found that litigant status generally matters, research at the US Supreme Court is not of one voice, with conflicting results across several studies. Bringing a novel perspective to this debate, we analyze litigant status at the Supreme Court's agenda-setting stage. Using archival data from the articles of Justice Blackmun, we find that litigant status influences the Court's decision making but that the nature of the effect can be mitigated by the interplay between a justice's ideology and the presence of interest group support. (OT1phvlslJEL C00, K00, K40) The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Yale University. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryan C. Black & Christina L. Boyd, 2012. "US Supreme Court Agenda Setting and the Role of Litigant Status," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 286-312.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:28:y::i:2:p:286-312
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jleo/ewq002
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Álvaro Bustos & Tonja Jacobi, 2014. "A Theory of Judicial Retirement," Documentos de Trabajo 451, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
    2. Juranek, Steffen, 2015. "Investing in legal advice - What determines the costs of enforcing intellectual property rights?," Discussion Papers 2015/20, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    3. Schoenherr, Jessica A. & Black, Ryan C., 2019. "Friends with benefits: Case significance, amicus curiae, and agenda setting on the U.S. Supreme Court," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 43-53.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C00 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - General
    • K00 - Law and Economics - - General - - - General (including Data Sources and Description)
    • K40 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:28:y::i:2:p:286-312. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jleo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.