State Coordinating Institutions and Agenda Setting on the U.S. Supreme Court

Abstract

What determines state success when petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for review? We suggest that states can improve the likelihood of securing Supreme Court review by coordinating litigation efforts. This coordination occurs in two ways. First, some states coordinate their appellate litigation efforts internally through the creation of state solicitors general offices. Second, external coordination occurs when states join amicus briefs at the agenda setting stage urging the Supreme Court to grant review in state-filed cases. Using new data on all state-filed certiorari petitions from the 2001-2009 terms, we find that internal and external coordination is associated with an increased likelihood of the Supreme Court granting review in statefiled cases.

State Solicitors General, Appellate Expertise, and State Success Before the U.S. Supreme Court

“…Before the Court rules in favor of the state, it must first agree to hear the case. As we stated above, there is evidence to suggest that the Court is more likely to hear a case filed by a state OSG (Goelzhauser and Vouvalis ). Indeed, we observe that the effect of having an OSG for states seems to be stronger when states are respondents than when they are petitioners.…”

“…Goelzhauser and Vouvalis () suggest that state OSGs may lead to success for state governments. The authors focus specifically on the role of state SGs at the Supreme Court's agenda stage.…”

“…Because the Epstein and O'Connor (1988) data predate these last two waves, it is unclear whether we can make inferences from the study about the impact of state OSGs as institutions. Goelzhauser and Vouvalis (2013) suggest that state OSGs may lead to success for state governments. The authors focus specifically on the role of state SGs at the Supreme Court's agenda stage.…”

“…This is the case for two reasons. First, OSGs foster team-based appellate expertise (Goelzhauser and Vouvalis 2013). The attorneys within these offices have and use substantial expertise in appellate matters.…”

“…Understanding this large bloc of cases can enhance scholarly knowledge of Supreme Court behavior generally. And while previous scholars have contributed a number of insightful works on state governments in the federal judiciary (Goelzhauser and Vouvalis ; Spill Solberg and Ray ; Clayton and McGuire ; Waltenburg and Swinford ; Clayton ; Kearney and Sheehan ; Epstein and O'Connor ), it is still unclear empirically whether (and how much) state efforts to enhance their success before the U.S. Supreme Court through OSGs have actually paid off.…”