Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:15:37.831Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Jenna Becker Kane
Jenna Becker Kane*
Affiliation:
West Chester University of Pennsylvania, West Chester, PA, USA
*
Jenna Becker Kane, West Chester University of Pennsylvania, 50 University Avenue, Ruby Jones Hall 101, West Chester, PA 19383, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most studies of amicus influence in both federal and state courts assume that the information provided in these briefs is the mechanism through which amici influence court outcomes. However, the question of how individual state supreme court judges respond to this third-party information and whether or not judicial responses are conditioned by differing methods of judicial retention is rarely theorized. Using social-psychological theories of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, this article investigates how ideological predispositions and electoral institutions structure the responsiveness of state high-court judges to amicus brief information. Utilizing an original dataset of more than 14,000 votes of state high-court judges across three distinct areas of law, this article tests competing theories of amicus influence to determine how state high-court judges utilize amicus information to render judicial decisions. Results are generally supportive of the informational theory of amicus influence in complex areas of law. However, a conditioning relationship of retention method suggests that competitive elections may alter the mechanism of amicus brief influence such that judicial responsiveness to third-party briefs is more closely tied to the reelection and campaign fundraising considerations of individual judges in politically contentious areas of law.

Keywords

amicus curiaestate supreme court decision makingjudicial electionsjudicial politicsjudicial selectioninterest groups and electionsparties and interest groups
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 251 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Bar Association. 2003. “Justice in Jeopardy: Report of the American Bar Association Commission on the 21st Century Judiciary.” American Bar Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
American Judicature Society. 2012. “A Significant Battle, an Ongoing War.” www.ajs.org/ajs/ajs_editorial-template.asp?content_id=1003 (accessed April 7, 2014).Google Scholar
Benesh, Sara C., and Martinek, Wendy L.. 2002. “State Supreme Court Decision Making in Confession Cases.” Justice System Journal 23 (1): 109–33..Google Scholar
Bonica, Adam, and Woodruff, Michael J.. 2015. “A Common-Space Measure of State Supreme Court Ideology.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 31 (3): 472–98.. doi:10.1093/jleo/ewu016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonneau, Chris W. 2004. “Patterns of Campaign Spending and Electoral Competition in State Supreme Court Elections.” Justice System Journal 25 (1): 21–38..Google Scholar
Bonneau, Chris W. 2005. “What Price Justice(s)? Understanding Campaign Spending in State Supreme Court Elections.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 5 (Summer): 107–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonneau, Chris W., and Hall, Melinda Gann. 2003. “Predicting Challengers in State Supreme Court Elections: Context and the Politics of Institutional Design.” Political Research Quarterly 56 (September): 337–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, and Butler, Kellie Sims. 2001. “New Perspectives for the Comparative Study of the Judiciary: The State Supreme Court Project.” Justice System Journal 22 (3): 243–62..Google Scholar
Brace, Paul, Hall, Melinda Gann, and Langer, Laura. 2001. “Placing State Supreme Courts in Politics.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 1:81–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, Langer, Laura, and Hall, Melinda Gann. 2000. “Measuring the Preferences of State Supreme Court Judges.” Journal of Politics 62 (2): 387–413..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldarone, Richard P., Canes-Wrone, Brandice, and Clark, Tom. 2009. “Partisan Labels and Democratic Accountability: An Analysis of State Supreme Court Abortion Decisions.” Journal of Politics 71 (2): 560–73..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Clark, Tom S., and Kelly, Jason P.. 2014. “Judicial Selection and Death Penalty Decisions.” American Political Science Review 108 (1): 23–39..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cann, Damon. 2002. “Campaign Contributions and Judicial Behavior.” American Review of Politics 23:261–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cann, Damon. 2007. “Justice for Sale? Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decisionmaking.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7 (3): 281–97..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cann, Damon M., Bonneau, Chris W., and Boyea, Brent D.. 2012. “Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decisions in Partisan and Nonpartisan Elections.” In New Directions in Judicial Politics, ed. McGuire, Kevin T.. New York: Routledg, 38–52.Google Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr. 2004. “Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation.” Law & Society Review 38 (4): 807–32..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr. 2007. “Lobbyists before the U.S. Supreme Court: Investigating the Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (1): 55–70..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr. 2008. Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr., Corley, Pamela C., and Hamner, Jesse. 2014. “Me Too? An Investigation of Repetition in U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Curiae Briefs.” Judicature 97 (5): 228–34..Google Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr., Corley, Pamela C., and Hamner, Jesse. 2015. “The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Content.” Law & Society Review 49 (4): 917–44..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr., and Martinek, Wendy L.. 2015. “Judges and Friends: The Influence of Amicus Curiae on U.S. Court of Appeals Judges.” American Politics Research 43 (2): 255–82..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comparato, Scott A. 2003. Amici Curiae and Strategic Behavior in State Supreme Courts. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee. 1994. “Exploring the Participation of Organized Interests in State Court Litigation.” Political Research Quarterly 47 (2): 335–51..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Knight, Jack. 1999. “Mapping Out the Strategic Terrain: The Informational Role of Amici Curiae.” In Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches, eds. Clayton, Cornell W. and Gillman, Howard. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 215–35.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 2006. “Public Opinion in the States: A Quarter Century of Change and Stability.” In Public Opinion in State Politics, ed. Cohen, Jeffrey. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 229–53.Google Scholar
Evans, Jonathan, T., St. B. 1989. Bias in Human Reasoning: Cause and Consequences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fischle, Mark. 2000. “Mass Response to the Lewinsky Scandal: Motivated Reasoning or Bayesian Updating?” Political Psychology 21 (1): 135–59..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flango, Victor E., Bross, Donald C., and Corbally, Sarah. 2006. “Amicus Curiae Briefs: The Court's Perspective.” Justice System Journal 27 (2): 180–90..Google Scholar
Gaines, Brian J., Kuklinski, James H., Quirk, Paul J., Peyton, Buddy, and Verkuilen, Jay. 2007. “Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq.” Journal of Politics 69 (4): 957–74..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Sanford C., and Huber, Gregory A.. 2007. “The Effect of Electoral Competitiveness on Incumbent Behavior.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2 (2): 107–38..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann. 2015. Attacking Judges: How Campaign Advertising Influences State Supreme Court Elections. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann, and Paul, Brace. 1999. “State Supreme Courts and Their Environments: Avenues to General Theories of Judicial Choice.” In Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches, ed. Clayton, Cornell W. and Gillman, Howard. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 281–300.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Valerie. 2005. “Competing Constraints: State Court Responses to Supreme Court Decisions and Legislation on Wages and Hours.” Political Research Quarterly 58 (2): 317–28..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Gregory A., and Gordon, Sanford C.. 2004. “Accountability and Coercion: Is Justice Blind When It Runs for Office?” American Journal of Political Science 48 (2): 247–63..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearney, Joseph D., and Merrill, Thomas W.. 2000. “The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148:1–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krislov, Samuel. 1963. “The Amicus Curiae Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy.” The Yale Law Journal 72 (4): 694–721..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. 2011. “Competitiveness in State Supreme Court Elections, 1946–2009.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8 (June): 237–59.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. 2015. Justices on the Ballot: Continuity and Change in State Supreme Court Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Ziva. 1987. “Motivated Inference: Self-Serving Generation and Evaluation of Causal Theories.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 (4): 636–47..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Ziva. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 480–98..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langer, Laura. 2002. Judicial Review in State Supreme Courts: A Comparative Study. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Lord, Charles G., Ross, Lee, and Lepper, Mark R.. 1979. “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effect of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (11): 2098–2109..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinek, Wendy. 2006. “Amici Curiae in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” American Politics Research 34 (6): 803–24..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCall, Madhavi. 2003. “The Politics of Judicial Elections: The Influence of Campaign Contributions on the Voting Patterns of Texas Supreme Court Justices, 1994–1997.” Politics & Policy 31 (2): 314–43..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, Raymond S. 1998. “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.” Review of General Psychology 2 (2): 175–220..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reidinger, Paul. 1987. “The Politics of Judging.” ABA Journal 73 (4): 52–58..Google Scholar
Rustad, Michael, and Koenig, Thomas. 1993. “The Supreme Court and Junk Social Science: Selective Distortion in Amicus Briefs.” North Carolina Law Review 72 (1): 91–162..Google Scholar
Sample, James, Skaggs, Adam, Blitzer, Jonathan, and Casey, Linda. 2010. “The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2000–2009: Decade of Change.” Justice at Stake Campaign, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Shepherd, Joanna M. 2009. “Money, Politics, and Impartial Justice.” Duke Law Journal 58:622–85.Google Scholar
Shepherd, Joanna M. 2013. “Justice at Risk: An Empirical Analysis of Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decisions.” http://www.acslaw.org/ACS%20Justice%20at%20Risk%20(FINAL)%206_10_13.pdf (accessed April 14, 2014).Google Scholar
Skaggs, Adam, Silva, Maria da, Casey, Linda, and Hall, Charles. 2011. “The New Politics of (Judicial Elections, 2009–2010).” Justice at Stake Campaign, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., and Kuersten, Ashlyn. 1995. “The Success of Amici in State Supreme Courts.” Political Research Quarterly 48:31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Kuersten, Ashlyn, and Kaheny, Erin. 2000. “Why the Haves Don't Always Come Out Ahead: Repeat Players Meet Amici Curiae for the Disadvantaged.” Political Research Quarterly 53 (3): 537–56..Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., and Sheehan, Reginald S.. 1993. “Interest Group Success in the Courts: Amicus Participation in the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 46 (2): 339–54..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spriggs, James F., and Wahlbeck, Paul J.. 1997. “Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 50 (2): 365–86..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmer, John, and Ginn, Martha Humphries. 2014. “Examining the Effects of Information, Attorney Capability, and Amicus Participation on U.S. Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Politics Research 42 (3): 441–71..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–69..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Margaret S., and Ditslear, Corey A.. 2007. “Bidding for Justice: The Influence of Attorney Contributions on State Supreme Courts.” Justice System Journal 28 (2): 135–56..Google Scholar