Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation

In 1969 Nathan Hakman published a report of his investigation of the role of interest groups in Supreme Court litigation. He found that interest groups filed amicus curiae briefs in only 18.6 percent of the 1,175 “noncommercial” cases decided by the Supreme Court between 1928 and 1966. Participation as amicus curiae illustrates only one aspect of litigation activity, and at that one of the most limited, but Hakman took this as a reliable indicator that interest group activity in the courts was less frequent than was commonly supposed. Based on these findings, Hakman attacked the view that amicus participation was a form of political action. Such a view, he argued, was mere “scholarly folklore” (Hakman, 1969: 199)

Archaeology · Folklore · Political science · Supreme court · History · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law in Society and Culture · Legal Education and Practice Innovations

• Participação Social no STF

  Open Access•Lívia Gil Guimarães•Revista Direito e Práxis•2020

  Incluir item

• Equal Employment Opportunity and the Mobilization of Law

  Open Access•Paul Burstein, Kathleen Monaghan•Law & Society Review•1986

  Incluir item

• Interest-Group Litigation in Federal District Court

  Susan M Olson•The Journal of Politics•1990

  Incluir item

• Amici Curiae before the Supreme Court

  Gregory A Caldeira, John Wright et al.•The Journal of Politics•1990

  Incluir item

• Counterbalancing the disadvantages of the “Have Nots”

  Open Access•Bianca Easterly•Interest Groups & Advocacy•2019

  Incluir item

• The Use of Amicus Briefs

  Open Access•Perry Mcd Collins•Annual Review of Law and Social…•2018

  Incluir item

• The right-to-die

  Open Access•Henry R Glick•Journal of Aging Studies•1991

  Incluir item

• Litigating in the Public Interest

  Christina Murray•South African Journal on Human…•1994

  Incluir item

• Assessing the Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Roberts Court

  Open Access•Richard L Pacelle, John M Scheb et al.•Social Science Quarterly•2018

  Incluir item

• Feminist Friends of the Court

  Holly J Mccammon, Magdalena N Sudibjo et al.•Sociological Focus•2022

  Incluir item

• Amici Curiae and Strategies for Gaining Access to the Supreme Court

  Open Access•Kevin T Mcguire•Political Research Quarterly•1994

  Incluir item

• Interest Group Success in the Courts

  Donald R Songer, Reginald S Sheehan•Political Research Quarterly•1993

  Incluir item

• Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court

  James F Spriggs, Paul J Wahlbeck•Political Research Quarterly•1997

  Incluir item

• The Institutional Sources of State Success in Federalism Litigation before the Supreme Court

  Open Access•Paul Chen, Paul H S Chen•Law & Policy•2003

  Incluir item

• Friends as Foes

  Open Access•Gregg Ivers, Karen O''Connor et al.•Law & Policy•1987

  Incluir item

• Amicus Curiae and the Public Interest

  Open Access•Nancy Daly, Nancy Riese Daly•Law & Policy•1990

  Incluir item

• The Influence of Administrative Law Judge and Political Appointee Decisions on Appellate Courts in National Labor Relations Board Cases

  Open Access•Cole D Taratoot•Law & Policy•2014

  Incluir item

• The Imperial Judiciary Meets the Impotent Congress

  Open Access•Timothy J O''Neill, Timothy J O’neill et al.•Law & Policy•1987

  Incluir item

• Explaining interest group litigation in Europe

  Open Access•Anna Hofmann, Daniel Naurin•Governance•2021

  Incluir item

• The Development of Interest Group Politics in America

  Daniel J Tichenor, Richard Harris et al.•Annual Review of Political Science•2005

  Incluir item

• Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court

  Open Access•Gregory A Caldeira, John Wright et al.•American Political Science Review•1988

  Incluir item

• Lawyers and the Structure of Influence in Washington

  Open Access•Robert L Nelson, John P Heinz et al.•Law & Society Review•1988

  Incluir item

• Friends of the Court

  Open Access•Perry Mcd Collins, Paul M Collins•Law & Society Review•2004

  Incluir item

• What Counts As Knowledge? A Reflection on Race, Social Science, and the Law

  Open Access•Rachel F Moran•Law & Society Review•2010

  Incluir item

• Beyond Gay Rights Litigation

  Rebecca Mae Salokar•GLQ A Journal of Lesbian and Gay…•1997

  Incluir item

• The governmental process

  David Bicknell Truman•The governmental process•1981

  Incluir item

• Caucasians Only

  Clement E Vose•Caucasians Only•1959

  Incluir item

• Voluntary Control of Smooth Eye Movements and their Velocity

  Open Access•Simon Heywood•Nature•1972

  Incluir item

• Simple Justice

  Richard Kluger•PsycEXTRA Dataset•1976

  Incluir item

• Frontiers of Judicial Research

  Francis D Wormuth, Joel B Grossman et al.•The Western Political Quarterly•1969

  Incluir item

• The Wall of Separation; The Constitutional Politics of Church and State

  Mary C Thornberry, Mary Thornberry et al.•The Western Political Quarterly•1976

  Incluir item

• Lawyers for Social Change

  Robert L Rabin•Stanford Law Review•1976

  Incluir item

• Cruel and Unusual

  Michael Meltsner•Stanford Law Review•1973

  Incluir item

• Simple Justice

  Open Access•Charles S Bullock•Political Science Quarterly•1976

  Incluir item

• The Wall of Separation

  Open Access•Richard E Morgan•Political Science Quarterly•1976

  Incluir item

• Constitutional Politics in the Progressive Era

  H Larry Ingle, Stephen B Wood•The Journal of Southern History•1968

  Incluir item

• American Government and Politics

  Alan Conway•International Affairs•1956

  Incluir item

• Litigation as a Form of Pressure Group Activity

  Open Access•Clement E Vose•The Annals of the American…•1958

  Incluir item

• Third Parties in Litigation

  Lucius J Barker•The Journal of Politics•1967

  Incluir item

• Interest Groups in American Society

  David L Sills, Harmon Zeigler•American Sociological Review•1965

  Incluir item

• Why the "Haves" Come Out Ahead

  Open Access•M Galanter•Law & Society Review•1974

  Incluir item

• Standing to Sue

  Open Access•Karen Orren•American Political Science Review•1976

  Incluir item