Pular para o conteúdo principal

ETHNOS_APP

Início • Busca • Periódicos • Lista 0

Lobbyists before the U.S. Supreme Court

Investigating the Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs

Dados Bibliográficos

ID7352256
AutoresPerry Mcd Collins (0000-0002-5474-4123, University of Houston, Texas, autor correspondente), Paul M Collins
Ano2007
Volume60
Fascículo1
Páginas55-70
Data de publicação2007-02-22
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoPolitical Research Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 1065-9129 • E-ISSN: 1938-274X
EditoraSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/1065912906298535
OpenAlexW2111491414
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas52
Referências citadas51

Despite the fact that amicus curiae participation is the most common method of interest group activity in the judicial arena, there is little consensus as to whether this means of participation influences the decision making of the U.S. Supreme Court. To redress this state of affairs, this research investigates the affect of amicus briefs on the ideological direction of the Court's decisions, with particular attention given to theoretical and methodological issues that have gone unexplored in previous studies. Analyzing group influence during the 1946 to 1995 terms, the results provide particularly robust evidence that pressure groups are effective in shaping the Court's policy outputs. These findings therefore indicate that elite decision makers can be influenced by persuasive argumentation presented by organized interests

Argumentation theory · Elite · Epistemology · Ideology · Law and economics · Majority opinion · Political science · Politics · Redress · Sociology · State (computer science · State supreme court · Supreme court · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Political Influence and Corporate Strategies

  • The Comparative Politics of Immigration

    Open Access•Antje Ellermann•Comparative Politics of Immigration•2021

  • The Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court

    Open Access•Ryan C Black, Ryan J Owens•Solicitor General and the United…•2012

  • State Coalitions, Informational Signals, and Success as Amicus Curiae at the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Kayla S Canelo•State Politics & Policy Quarterly•2020

  • The Personal Finances of United States Supreme Court Justices and Decision-making in Economic Litigation

    Open Access•Jordan Carr Peterson, Thora Giallouri et al.•The Journal of Legal Studies•2021

  • Interest Group Participation, Competition, and Conflict in the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Perry Mcd Collins, Paul M Collins et al.•Law & Social Inquiry•2007

  • Cite and Sway? Attorneys, Briefs, and Persuasion at the U.S. Supreme Court

    Elizabeth A Lane, Jessica A Schoenherr•The Journal of Politics•2025

  • Seeking Information

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

  • The Role of Emotional Language in Briefs before the US Supreme Court

    Open Access•Ryan C Black, Matthew E K Hall et al.•Journal of Law and Courts•2016

  • U.S. immigration policy at the court

    Open Access•Seulah Choi, D P Christenson et al.•Politics Groups and Identities•2024

  • Conglomerates at the court

    Open Access•Lucas Boschelli, J M Box-Steffensmeier et al.•Research & Politics•2024

  • Counterbalancing the disadvantages of the “Have Nots”

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

  • Listening to competing speakers

    Open Access•Giuliano Espino•Interest Groups & Advocacy•2022

  • A facework system of minimal politeness

    Karen Tracy•Journal of Politeness Research•2011

  • Signals from a politicized bar

    Open Access•Scott S Boddery•Constitutional Political Economy•2019

  • The Use of Amicus Briefs

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

  • The Revolving Door in Judicial Politics

    Open Access•Huchen Liu, Jonathan P Kastellec•American Politics Research•2022

  • The Signals of Unlikely Allies

    Open Access•Sahar Abi-Hassan•American Politics Research•2025

  • The Role of Gender Norms in Judicial Decision-Making at the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Shane A Gleason, Jennifer Jones et al.•American Politics Research•2018

  • Judges and Friends

    Open Access•Perry Mcd Collins, Wendy L Martinek•American Politics Research•2014

  • Placing the Ball in Congress’ Court

    Open Access•Deborah Rice•American Politics Research•2018

  • Intervention unnecessary

    Open Access•Matthew Reid Krell•Journal of Public Affairs•2016

  • Independent Labels? The Power behind Environmental Information about Products and Companies

    Open Access•Graham Bullock•Political Research Quarterly•2014

  • Representing the States Before the U.S. Supreme Court

    Shane A Gleason, Colin Provost•Publius The Journal of Federalism•2016

  • Does Seniority Matter? The Conditional Influence of State Methods of Judicial Retention

    Open Access•Brent D Boyea•Social Science Quarterly•2010

  • How low can we go

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

  • 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

  • Breaking the bank

    Open Access•Thora Giallouri, Elli Menounou•Social Science Quarterly•2024

  • Counteractive Lobbying in the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Lisa A Solowiej, Perry Mcd Collins et al.•American Politics Research•2009

  • Friends You Can Trust

    Open Access•Lucia Manzi, Matthew E K Hall•Law & Society Review•2017

  • A theory of organizational choice

    Open Access•Benjamin Farrer•Party Politics•2014

  • The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Content

    Open Access•Perry Mcd Collins, Paul M Collins et al.•Law & Society Review•2015

  • Lobbying Justice(s)? Exploring the Nature of Amici Influence in State Supreme Court Decision Making

    Open Access•Jenna Becker Kane•State Politics & Policy Quarterly•2017

  • Amicus Coalition Heterogeneity and Signaling Credibility in Supreme Court Agenda Setting

    Greg Goelzhauser, Nicole Vouvalis•Publius The Journal of Federalism•2015

  • Judicial Innovation and Sexual Harassment Doctrine in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

    Open Access•Laura P Moyer, Holley Tankersley•Political Research Quarterly•2011

  • Representation on the Courts? The Effects of Trial Judges’ Sex and Race

    Open Access•Christina L Boyd•Political Research Quarterly•2016

  • Measuring Case Salience in State Courts of Last Resort

    Open Access•Richard L Vining, Teena Wilhelm•Political Research Quarterly•2011

  • Informational Need, Institutional Capacity, and Court Receptivity

    Open Access•Jenna Becker Kane•Political Research Quarterly•2018

  • Voting Fluidity and Oral Argument on the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Eve M Ringsmuth, Amanda Clare Bryan et al.•Political Research Quarterly•2012

  • A Built-In Advantage

    Open Access•Ryan C Black, Ryan J Owens•Political Research Quarterly•2013

  • The Ideologies of Organized Interests and Amicus Curiae Briefs

    Open Access•Sahar Abi-Hassan, J M Box-Steffensmeier et al.•Political Analysis•2023

  • Attenuated Governance

    Open Access•Ursula Hackett•Policy Studies Journal•2019

  • Studying Organizational Advocacy and Influence

    Marie Hojnacki, David C Kimball et al.•Annual Review of Political Science•2012

  • The Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Strategies in the Supreme Court

    Open Access•Chris Nicholson, Perry Mcd Collins et al.•American Politics Research•2008

  • The Supreme Court, Ideology, and the Decision to Cite or Borrow from Amicus Curiae Briefs

    Open Access•Kayla S Canelo•American Politics Research•2022

  • Supreme Court Precedent in a Judicial Hierarchy

    Open Access•Ali S Masood, Benjamin J Kassow et al.•American Politics Research•2017

  • Humor and Persuasion

    Open Access•Siyu Li, Tom Pryor•Law & Policy•2020

  • Litigant Status and Trial Court Appeal Mobilization

    Open Access•Christina L Boyd•Law & Policy•2015

  • When the potted plants are missing

    Natalie Rogol, Matthew Montgomery•The Social Science Journal•2025

  • The Impact of Supreme Court Activity on the Judicial Agenda

    Open Access•Deborah Rice, Douglas Rice•Law & Society Review•2014

  • Participação Social no STF

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

  • Capacidades institucionais dos amici curiae no Supremo Tribunal Federal

    Open Access•Eloísa Machado De Almeida•Revista Direito e Práxis•2019

  • Quality Over Quantity

    Open Access•J M Box-Steffensmeier, D P Christenson et al.•American Political Science Review•2013

  • Basic Interests

    F R Baumgartner, Beth L Leech•Basic Interests•1998

  • Caucasians Only

    Clement E Vose•Caucasians Only•1959

  • The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court

    Joseph D Kearney, Thomas W Merrill•University of Pennsylvania Law…•2000

  • Computing Interaction Effects and Standard Errors in Logit and Probit Models

    Open Access•Edward C Norton, Hua Wang et al.•The Stata Journal: Promoting…•2004

  • Observing Supreme Court Oral Argument

    Open Access•James N Schubert, A Peterson et al.•Politics and the Life Sciences•1992

  • Elements of Judicial Strategy

    Martin Shapiro, Walter F Murphy•Stanford Law Review•1966

  • Litigation as a Form of Pressure Group Activity

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

  • Race Relations Litigation in an Age of Complexity

    Richard L Aynes, Stephen L Wasby•American Journal of Legal History•1997

  • Amici Curiae in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

    Open Access•Wendy L Martinek•American Politics Research•2006

  • Taking Time Seriously

    Niels Beck, Nathaniel Beck et al.•American Journal of Political…•1998

  • Friends of the Court

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

  • Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Revisited

    Jeffrey A Segal, Lee Epstein et al.•The Journal of Politics•1995

  • Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999

    Open Access•A D Martins, Andrew D Martin et al.•Political Analysis•2002

  • Reactions of State Supreme Courts to A U.S. Supreme Court Civil Liberties Decision

    Open Access•Bradley C Canon•Law & Society Review•1973

  • U.S. Supreme Court Decision Making, Case Salience, and the Attitudinal Model

    Open Access•Isaac Unah, Ange-Marie Hancock et al.•Law & Policy•2006

  • 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

  • The Influence of Oral Arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Timothy R Johnson, Paul J Wahlbeck et al.•American Political Science Review•2006

  • Supreme Court Justices as Human Decision Makers

    Jeffrey A Segal•The Journal of Politics•1986

  • Repeat Players in the Supreme Court

    Kevin T Mcguire•The Journal of Politics•1995

  • Amici Curiae before the Supreme Court

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

  • The Insignificance of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing

    Open Access•Jeff Gill•Political Research Quarterly•1999

  • The Success of Amici in State Supreme Courts

    Open Access•Donald R Songer, Ashlyn Kuersten•Political Research Quarterly•1995

  • Interest Group Success in the Courts

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

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

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

  • Understanding Interaction Models

    Open Access•Thomas Brambor, William R Clark et al.•Political Analysis•2006

  • The Supreme Court and Federal Administrative Agencies

    James F Spriggs•American Journal of Political…•1996

  • Measuring Issue Salience

    Lee Epstein, Jeffrey A Segal•American Journal of Political…•2000

  • The Hierarchy of Justice

    Donald R Songer, Jeffrey A Segal et al.•American Journal of Political…•1994

  • Signals from the Tenth Justice

    Open Access•Michael A Bailey, Brian Kamoie et al.•American Journal of Political…•2005

  • Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion

    Shelly Chaiken•Journal of Personality and Social…•1980

  • Friends as Foes

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

  • The Influence of Jurisprudential Considerations on Supreme Court Decisionmaking

    Open Access•Stefanie A Lindquist, David E Klein et al.•Law & Society Review•2006

  • Why the "Haves" Come Out Ahead

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

  • Debunking the Myth of Interest Group Invincibility in the Courts

    Open Access•Lee Epstein, C K Rowland•American Political Science Review•1991

  • Supreme Court Impact on Compliance and Outcomes

    Open Access•Donald R Songer, Reginald S Sheehan•The Western Political Quarterly•1990

  • Interest Representation

    Open Access•Robert H Salisbury•American Political Science Review•1984

  • Ideology, Status, and The Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court

    Open Access•Reginald S Sheehan, William Mishler et al.•American Political Science Review•1992

Obras citantes distintas52
Citações por ano2,74
Intervalo de citações2007 - 2025 (19)
Velocidade de citaçãorecent
Altamente citadoNão
Tipos de citaçãoNeutras: 52
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