Quality Over Quantity: Amici Influence and Judicial Decision Making

Abstract

I nterest groups often make their preferences known on cases before the U.S. Supreme Court via amicus curiae briefs. In evaluating the case and related arguments, we posit that judges take into account more than just the number of supporters for the liberal and conservative positions. Specifically, judges' decisions may also reflect the relative power of the groups. We use network position to measure interest group power in U.S. Supreme Court cases from 1946 to 2001. We find that the effect of interest group power is minimal in times of heavily advantaged cases. However, when the two sides of a case are approximately equal in the number of briefs, such power is a valuable signal to judges. We also show that justice ideology moderates the effect of liberal interest group power. The results corroborate previous findings on the influence of amicus curiae briefs and add a nuanced understanding of the conditions under which the quality and reputation of interest groups matter, not just the quantity.

Friends You Can Trust: A Signaling Theory of Interest Group Litigation Before the U.S. Supreme Court

“…This finding mitigates concerns related to causal identification and suggests that amicus activity actually influences the justices' voting behavior. Thus, our analyses support the conclusion that signaling theory explains the “pathway of persuasion” (Box‐Steffensmeier et al : 456) from amici to justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.…”

“…Earlier research shows that Supreme Court justices rely so heavily on information in amicus briefs, that they often signal their need for these documents to interest groups (Hansford and Johnson ). Moreover, previous works have found that amicus briefs do not just influence the justices' final decisions on the merits of a case (Box‐Steffensmeier et al ; Collins et al ), they also affect the justices' decision to hear a case in the first place, namely to “grant certiorari” to a legal case coming from a lower court (Caldeira and Wright ; Owens and Black ). In addition, other studies suggest that amicus briefs may have a significant effect on the likelihood of dissenting opinions (Collins ).…”

studying policy advocacy through social network analysis

“…Advocacy success can then represent the dependent variable of a study on IGs advocacy activities in policy-making processes. This advocacy success variable is compatible (even if not identical) with dependent variables studied previously by Box-Steffensmeier et al (2013) and Heaney (2014), who measured and explained (perceived) policy influence. Furthermore, this 'preferred outcome' variable goes one step further than the dependent variable used by Beyers and Braun (2013), who basically capture 'venue access' of IGs as precondition for any policy influence (Eising, 2007).…”

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

“…At the agenda setting stage, amicus briefs highlight the significance of appeals, increasing the likelihood that the justices will review a case (Black and Boyd ; Caldeira and Wright ). At the merits stage, amicus briefs are associated with litigation success (Collins ; Kearney and Merrill ), as well as with the ideological direction of the Court's decisions and the justices’ votes (Box‐Steffensmeier, Christenson, and Hitt ; Collins ). Moreover, amicus briefs enhance the likelihood that the justices will author concurring or dissenting opinions (Collins ).…”