The Narrow Confines of Institutional Activism

The U.S. Supreme Court, Abortion, and Amicus Curiae Briefs

Bibliographic Data

ID7921143
AuthorsAmanda Konet (0000-0001-5295-6483, The first and second authors shared equally in the preparation of the manuscript. Amanda Konet is a Data Scientist at Research Triangle Institute International, Holly McCammon is Cornelius Vanderbilt Chair of Sociology and Professor of Sociology at Vanderbilt University, and Sarah Torrence is a Portfolio Data Analyst at Nephila Advisors. Direct correspondence to [email protected], corresponding author), Holly J Mccammon (0000-0003-1462-0860, The first and second authors shared equally in the preparation of the manuscript. Amanda Konet is a Data Scientist at Research Triangle Institute International, Holly McCammon is Cornelius Vanderbilt Chair of Sociology and Professor of Sociology at Vanderbilt University, and Sarah Torrence is a Portfolio Data Analyst at Nephila Advisors. Direct correspondence to [email protected]), Sarah Torrence (The first and second authors shared equally in the preparation of the manuscript. Amanda Konet is a Data Scientist at Research Triangle Institute International, Holly McCammon is Cornelius Vanderbilt Chair of Sociology and Professor of Sociology at Vanderbilt University, and Sarah Torrence is a Portfolio Data Analyst at Nephila Advisors. Direct correspondence to [email protected]), Sarah K Torrence (Vanderbilt University)
Year2024
Volume29
Issue2
Pages133-163
Publication date2024-06-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueMobilization An International Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1086-671X • E-ISSN: 1938-1514
PublisherMobilization Journal (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.17813/1086-671x-29-2-133
OpenAlexW4401429285
LanguageEN
Citations received1

Abortion disputes routinely occur in the judicial realm. Before the Supreme Court, from Roe to Dobbs, both reproductive rights and antiabortion movement groups and their allies engaged in institutional activism, filing amicus curiae (or friend-of-the-court) briefs to influence case outcomes. The number of such briefs has increased substantially over time. Yet few movement researchers investigate this form of institutional activism. We examine amicus briefs in over forty abortion cases from 1971 to 2022, discerning which amicus filers and frames influence justice voting, including for the pivotal moderate justices. We situate our work in resource mobilization, professional status, and framing theorizing, concluding that amicus briefs significantly shape judicial outcomes in abortion cases. However, our results show effective amicus strategies confront a narrow set of opportunities for judicial influence. Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court battle over reproductive rights is heavily shaped by justice ideology, with filer and framing approaches—when they are influential—impacting mainly moderate justices

Abortion · Battle · Economic Justice · Jurisprudence · Political science · Politics · Reproductive justice · Sociology · Supreme court · Supreme Court Decisions · Voting · American Constitutional Law and Politics · Law · Reproductive Health and Contraception · Reproductive Health and Technologies

Tools

Open DOI