The Discuss List
Agenda Building in the Supreme Court
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4084433 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Gregory A Caldeira, John Wright (0000-0001-9572-7293), John R Wright |
| Year | 1990 |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 807-836 |
| Publication date | 1990-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Law & Society Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0023-9216 • E-ISSN: 1540-5893 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/3053860 |
| OpenAlex | W2322469481 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 24 |
| References cited | 15 |
Each term 4,000 or more cases arrive at the doorstep of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court narrows the field of decision from all possible choices to a smaller set of the most plausible ones; in a typical term, the Conference places 20 to 30 percent (around 500) of the cases filed on its "discuss list," only 150 or so of which will be selected for plenary review. Here we investigate the composition, sources, and implications of the Court's discuss list. What criteria do the justices use in creating the list of cases for discussion in conference? Do these criteria differ from those ultimately applied in the decision to grant or deny a writ of certiorari? What, if any, implications does the operation of the discuss list hold for the composition of the agenda and the outcome of decisions on the merits in the Supreme Court?We test two chief sets of hypotheses: (1) the justices weigh the various formal and informal criteria differently across the two stages of agenda building, and (2) despite differences in weighting, the justices rely on briefs amicus curiae as well as ideological predispositions to help them both to identify logical candidates for discussion and to decide whether to grant certiorari. We explain the variation in the weighting of the criteria as being largely due to the cost and accuracy of information and the different risk of errors during the two phases of choice
Political science · Supreme court · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal and Constitutional Studies
Selection of Cases for Discussion
Aesthetic Preferences and Policy Preferences as Determinants of US Supreme Court Writing Style
Advisors to Elites
Agenda Setting and Attention to Precedent in the US Federal Courts
Deferring, Deliberating, or Dodging Review
The Relative (Un)Importance of Rehnquist Court Decisions
U.S. Government Litigation Strategies in the Federal Appellate Courts
Selecting Appeals for Judicial Review in Canada
Acclimation Effects and Separate Opinion Writing in the U.S. Courts of Appeals
The Role of Law Clerks in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Agenda-Setting Process
Case Selection and Decisionmaking in the U.S. Supreme Court
The Effect of Politically Salient Decisions on the U.S. Supreme Court's Agenda
Institutional Arrangements and the Dynamics of Agenda Formation in the U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals
Issue Fluidity on the U.S. Supreme Court
Attention to Issues in a System of Separated Powers
Justice-level heterogeneity in certiorari voting
Getting Attention
Assessing the Impact of State Judicial Structures on Citizen Litigiousness
Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing
Aggressive Grants by Affirm-Minded Justices
When the potted plants are missing
Policy-Making by Different Means
Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity
Issues, Agendas, and Decision Making on the Supreme Court
The logic of images in international relations.
Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics
Conflict with Supreme Court Precedent and the Granting of Plenary Review
Serving Justice
The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions
Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court
Concern for Policy Outputs as a Cue for Supreme Court Decisions on Certiorari
Amici Curiae before the Supreme Court
Policy Goals in Judicial Gatekeeping
Why the "Haves" Come Out Ahead
Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General during the Warren and Burger Courts
| Unique citing works | 24 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,73 |
| Citation span | 1993 - 2025 (33) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 24 |