IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v18y2021i4p700-741.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Influence of Amici on Supreme Court Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald Mann
  • Michael Fronk

Abstract

The authors analyze a dataset of indicators of the influence of amicus filings on the decisions of the United States Supreme Court from October Term 2013 through October Term 2018), examining the effect of filings on the prevailing party, on citations to amicus filings, and on sources drawn from amicus filings. The dataset includes 386 cases, 4500 amicus filings, and 22,000 citations in Supreme Court decisions. In some ways, the paper updates scholarship from the turn of the century, when amicus filings were much less prevalent, but it also breaks new ground with the data about citations to amicus filings and sources drawn from amicus filings. The principal findings are (1) the effect of amicus filings on the decision is much more even than it was at the turn of the century, when it was concentrated on bottom‐side filings; and (2) the effects of filings are much more noticeable for amicus filers less directly motivated by monetary considerations (academics, think tanks, and the like) and less noticeable for those more directly motivated by monetary considerations (trade associations and businesses).

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald Mann & Michael Fronk, 2021. "Assessing the Influence of Amici on Supreme Court Decision Making," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 700-741, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:18:y:2021:i:4:p:700-741
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12302
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12302?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael A. Bailey & Brian Kamoie & Forrest Maltzman, 2005. "Signals from the Tenth Justice: The Political Role of the Solicitor General in Supreme Court Decision Making," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(1), pages 72-85, January.
    2. Paul M. Collins, 2008. "Amici Curiae and Dissensus on the U.S. Supreme Court," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 143-170, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ryan J. Owens, 2010. "The Separation of Powers and Supreme Court Agenda Setting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 412-427, April.
    2. Justin Wedeking, 2010. "Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 617-631, July.
    3. Meckling, Jonas & Nahm, Jonas, 2019. "The politics of technology bans: Industrial policy competition and green goals for the auto industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 470-479.
    4. Lee Epstein & Eric A. Posner, 2016. "Supreme Court Justices' Loyalty to the President," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 401-436.
    5. Paul Hofmarcher & Sourav Adhikari & Bettina Grun, 2022. "Gaining Insights on U.S. Senate Speeches Using a Time Varying Text Based Ideal Point Model," Papers 2206.10877, arXiv.org.
    6. Yonatan Lupu & James H. Fowler, 2013. "Strategic Citations to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 151-186.
    7. Kevin A. Clarke, 2009. "Return of the Phantom Menace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(1), pages 46-66, February.
    8. Scott S. Boddery, 2019. "Signals from a politicized bar: the solicitor general as a direct litigant before the U.S. Supreme Court," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 194-210, June.
    9. Scott Simon Boddery & Damon Cann & Laura Moyer & Jeff Yates, 2023. "The role of cable news hosts in public support for Supreme Court decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 1045-1069, December.
    10. Shor, Boris & McCarty, Nolan, 2010. "The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures," Papers 8-11-2010, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.

    More about this item

    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:wly:empleg:v:18:y:2021:i:4:p:700-741. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    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.