Recurring Litigants
Federal Agencies Before the Supreme Court
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 3334516 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Bradley C Canon (University of Kentucky), Micheal W Giles (Florida Atlantic University), Micheal Giles (Florida Atlantic University) |
| Ano | 1972 |
| Volume | 25 |
| Fascículo | 2 |
| Páginas | 183-191 |
| Data de publicação | 1972-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | The Western Political Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 0043-4078 • E-ISSN: 2325-8675 |
| Editora | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591297202500203 |
| OpenAlex | W1984444523 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citações recebidas | 31 |
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
U.S. Government Litigation Strategies in the Federal Appellate Courts
U.S. Courts of Appeals Judges’ Review of Federal Natural Resource Agencies’ Decisions
Does Chevron Matter
Researching the Supreme Court in a Democratic Pluralist System
At the Crossroads of Policymaking
Governmental Litigants, Underdogs, and Civil Liberties
Judicial Review of Administrative Agencies
Court Curbing, Court Reversals, and Judicial Review
Law and Politics in Judicial Oversight of Federal Administrative Agencies
Governmental Litigants, Underdogs, and Civil Liberties in the Supreme Court
Executives Strike Back
Seeking Information
The Power of Presidential Partisanship
Presidential Rhetoric and U.S. Supreme Court Rulings
Selection Tests and Equal Opportunity
How low can we go
U.S. Government Litigation Strategies in the Federal Appellate Courts
Presidential Bureaucratic Power and Supreme Court Justice Voting
The Burger Court and Economic Liberalism
Administrative Agencies and the Court
| Obras citantes distintas | 21 |
|---|---|
| Citações por ano | 0,66 |
| Intervalo de citações | 1979 - 2025 (47) |
| Velocidade de citação | recent |
| Altamente citado | Não |
| Tipos de citação | Neutras: 19 |