Participation as amicus curiae has long been an important tactic of organized interests in litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court. We analyze amicus curiae briefs filed before the decision on certiorari and assess their impact on the Court's selection of a plenary docket. We hypothesize that one or more briefs advocating or opposing certiorari increase the likelihood of its being granted. We test this hypothesis using data from the United States Reports and Briefs and Records of the United States Supreme Court for the 1982 term. The statistical analysis demonstrates that the presence of amicus curiae briefs filed prior to the decision on certiorari significantly and positively increases the chances of the justices' binding of a case over for full treatment—even after we take into account the full array of variables other scholars have hypothesized or shown to be substantial influences on the decision to grant or deny.

Lobbying efforts and campaign contributions from coalitions of groups are used to explain representatives' voting decisions within the U.S. House Ways and Means and Agriculture Committees. Information about which groups worked together on two controversial issues and which representatives they lobbied was obtained through personal interviews and a mail survey of professional lobbyists. The analysis reveals that committee-level voting, particularly in the Ways and Means Committee, is best explained by the total number of lobbying contacts representatives received from groups on each side of the issue. Campaign contributions proved somewhat useful for explaining groups' lobbying patterns; but it appears to be lobbying, not money, that shapes and reinforces representatives' policy decisions.

Background The American College of Surgeons and the American Geriatrics Society have suggested that preoperative cognitive screening should be performed in older surgical patients. We hypothesized that unrecognized cognitive impairment in patients without a history of dementia is a risk factor for development of postoperative complications. Methods We enrolled 211 patients 65 yr of age or older without a diagnosis of dementia who were scheduled for an elective hip or knee replacement. Patients were cognitively screened preoperatively using the Mini-Cog and demographic, medical, functional, and emotional/social data were gathered using standard instruments or review of the medical record. Outcomes included discharge to place other than home (primary outcome), delirium, in-hospital medical complications, hospital length-of-stay, 30-day emergency room visits, and mortality. Data were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses. Results Fifty of 211 (24%) patients screened positive for probable cognitive impairment (Mini-Cog less than or equal to 2). On age-adjusted multivariate analysis, patients with a Mini-Cog score less than or equal to 2 were more likely to be discharged to a place other than home (67% vs. 34%; odds ratio = 3.88, 95% CI = 1.58 to 9.55), develop postoperative delirium (21% vs. 7%; odds ratio = 4.52, 95% CI = 1.30 to 15.68), and have a longer hospital length of stay (hazard ratio = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.42 to 0.95) compared to those with a Mini-Cog score greater than 2. Conclusions Many older elective orthopedic surgical patients have probable cognitive impairment preoperatively. Such impairment is associated with development of delirium postoperatively, a longer hospital stay, and lower likelihood of going home upon hospital discharge.