Pular para o conteúdo principal

ETHNOS_APP

Início • Busca • Periódicos • Lista 0

Recurring Litigants

Federal Agencies Before the Supreme Court

Dados Bibliográficos

ID3334516
AutoresBradley C Canon (University of Kentucky), Micheal W Giles (Florida Atlantic University), Micheal Giles (Florida Atlantic University)
Ano1972
Volume25
Fascículo2
Páginas183-191
Data de publicação1972-06-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoThe Western Political Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0043-4078 • E-ISSN: 2325-8675
EditoraSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/106591297202500203
OpenAlexW1984444523
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas31

CONTEMPORARY analysis of the United States Supreme Court has largely ignored the possible impact of the litigants per se on the Court's decision making. In part this is because for most parties, an appearance before the Supreme Court is a singular or relatively rare event. And in part, it is because those few parties who do appear frequently before the Court, e.g., the Department of Justice, do so in a whole spectrum of cases arising in very different circumstances and treated by a variety of procedures. Some federal administrative agencies do, however, appear before the Court several times each term; moreover, the problems presented in such cases are normally encompassed in a relatively narrow scope of procedural and substantive issues. One might anticipate that such extended interaction between the agencies and the Court would introduce a new dimension into decision making in these cases. Past experiences with cases involving a particular agency might affect the Court's or at least some justices' perceptions of cases brought in the future. That is, the justices are likely to form general attitudes about the goals of a particular agency's policies or the fairness of its procedures on the basis of such continued exposure and reflect these attitudes in their voting behavior. Some thirty-five years ago, Chief Justice Hughes broadly hinted that this was indeed what happened. In St. Joseph Stockyards Co. v. United States, he stated: 1

Agency (philosophy) · Court of record · Economic Justice · Federal court · Original jurisdiction · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Supreme court · Variety (cybernetics) · Voting · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal and Constitutional Studies · Legal Systems and Judicial Processes

  • Judicial Deference and Executive Control Over Administrative Agencies

    Open Access•Gbemende Johnson•State Politics & Policy Quarterly•2014

  • U.S. Government Litigation Strategies in the Federal Appellate Courts

    Christopher J W Zorn, Christopher Zorn•Political Research Quarterly•2002

  • U.S. Courts of Appeals Judges’ Review of Federal Natural Resource Agencies’ Decisions

    Robert W Malmsheimer, ROBERT MALMSHEIMER et al.•Society & Natural Resources•2004

  • Does Chevron Matter

    Open Access•Mark J Richards, Joseph L Smith et al.•Law & Policy•2006

  • Researching the Supreme Court in a Democratic Pluralist System

    Open Access•Sidney Ulmer, S Sidney Ulmer•Law & Policy•1979

  • At the Crossroads of Policymaking

    Open Access•Kiki Caruson, J Michael Bitzer•Law & Policy•2004

  • Governmental Litigants, Underdogs, and Civil Liberties

    Open Access•Reginald S Sheehan•The Western Political Quarterly•1992

  • Judicial Review of Administrative Agencies

    Open Access•Donald W Crowley•The Western Political Quarterly•1987

  • Court Curbing, Court Reversals, and Judicial Review

    Open Access•Roger Handberg, Harold F Hill•Law & Society Review•1980

  • Law and Politics in Judicial Oversight of Federal Administrative Agencies

    Martha Anne Humphries, Donald R Songer•The Journal of Politics•1999

  • Governmental Litigants, Underdogs, and Civil Liberties in the Supreme Court

    Sidney Ulmer, S Sidney Ulmer•The Journal of Politics•1985

  • Executives Strike Back

    Open Access•Matthew Montgomery, Natalie Rogol et al.•Journal of Law and Courts•2024

  • Seeking Information

    Open Access•Natalie Rogol, Matthew Montgomery•Journal of Law and Courts•2020

  • The Power of Presidential Partisanship

    Open Access•Natalie Rogol, Anna Mccaghren Fleming et al.•Presidential Studies Quarterly•2025

  • Presidential Rhetoric and U.S. Supreme Court Rulings

    Open Access•Matthew Montgomery, Natalie Rogol et al.•Presidential Studies Quarterly•2019

  • Selection Tests and Equal Opportunity

    Open Access•Donald W Crowley•Administration & Society•1985

  • How low can we go

    Open Access•Matthew Montgomery, Natalie Rogol•Social Science Quarterly•2023

  • U.S. Government Litigation Strategies in the Federal Appellate Courts

    Open Access•Christopher J W Zorn, Christopher Zorn•Political Research Quarterly•2002

  • Presidential Bureaucratic Power and Supreme Court Justice Voting

    Open Access•Jeff Yates•Political Behavior•1999

  • The Burger Court and Economic Liberalism

    Open Access•Robert L Dudley, Craig R Ducat•The Western Political Quarterly•1986

  • Administrative Agencies and the Court

    Reginald S Sheehan•The Western Political Quarterly•1990

Obras citantes distintas21
Citações por ano0,66
Intervalo de citações1979 - 2025 (47)
Velocidade de citaçãorecent
Altamente citadoNão
Tipos de citaçãoNeutras: 19
Ethnos_APP • Projeto Open Source • Licença MIT • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacidade e Cookies • Documentação da API: api.ethnos.app/docs • Código da API: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Código do Frontend: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae