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

Owens, Ryan J.; Wohlfarth, Patrick C.

doi:10.1111/lasr.12095

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 17. Owens and Wohlfarth (2014) find that solicitors general decrease the likelihood that a state loses a case in front of the Supreme Court. Their research focus is different from our focus in that they are only interested in the likelihood that a state’s position prevails once a case makes it to the Court.…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

“…As a result, these perspectives fail to account for important variation in state legislative institutions and, therefore, may not fully explain the Court’s review of state laws specifically. Previous work that directly examines cases to which states are a party emphasizes the importance of ideology (e.g., Gates 1987) and the presence of specialized litigation offices (e.g., state solicitor general) within a state (Epstein and O’Connor 1988; Owens and Wohlfarth 2014). We build on these works by examining the influence of a different state characteristic—legislative professionalism—on the likelihood a state has one of its laws struck down.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pushing Constitutional Limits in the U.S. States: Legislative Professionalism and Judicial Review of State Laws by the U.S. Supreme Court

Miller

Ringsmuth

Little³

2015

State Politics Policy Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When the U.S. Supreme Court exercises its power of judicial review over state laws, its decisions, like the legislation it considers, frequently speak to major policy debates. Despite the Court's routine involvement with state statutes, theoretical explanations of judicial review generally do not distinguish between state laws and federal laws. The characteristics of state legislatures lead legislators in different states to have distinct perspectives and incentives, and ultimately affect the types of laws enacted in different states. We suggest that because the level of professionalism of state legislatures affects the types of laws pursued by different states, it may also affect the likelihood that a state has a law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. We find support for this expectation. Specifically, legislative professionalism is associated with an increased likelihood that a state has a law invalidated by the Court. This new evidence indicates that it is important to consider the legislative context in which state laws originate when examining the Court's review of state laws.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 89%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pushing Constitutional Limits in the U.S. States: Legislative Professionalism and Judicial Review of State Laws by the U.S. Supreme Court

Miller

Ringsmuth

Little³

2015

State Politics Policy Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Through repeated actions with the states, justices come to know them. The states appear before the Supreme Court more than any other actor other than the federal government (Gleason & Provost, 2015;Owens & Wohlfarth, 2014).…”

Section: State Policy Mood and Supreme Court Agenda Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Supreme Court Justices Supervise Ideologically Distant States

Bryan

Owens

2017

American Politics Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because the Supreme Court can decide only so many cases per term, justices carefully target which cases they hear and which parties they supervise. We focus on their decisions to hear cases involving states as parties. We believe justices use the agenda power to target states with whom they disagree ideologically. Granting review allows justices to keep an eye on wayward states and to remind them of the ever-present threat of Supreme Court review. The results support our theory. Justices are significantly more likely to grant review to cases involving ideologically unfriendly states—and these results are exacerbated in salient cases. These findings suggest justices are more aggressive agenda setters than commonly believed. In addition, the findings suggest that even the so-called federalism revolution of the Rehnquist Court was driven by policy goals.

show abstract

“…Although states are likely to vary in their preferences over a great many things (e.g., Owens and Wohlfarth 2014), surely they should all be interested in having courts that are seen as legitimate, that keep their states in control of their policies, and that are efficient. Of course, judges should also value these things.…”

Section: State Selection Systems and Forward-looking Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Nominating Commissions, Judicial Retention, and Forward-Looking Behavior on State Supreme Courts: An Empirical Examination of Selection and Retention Methods

Owens

Tahk

Wohlfarth

et al. 2015

State Politics Policy Q.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-profile advocates are pushing states to move away from judicial elections and toward a "merit" method because it purportedly produces the best quality judges. Quality, however, is difficult to measure empirically. Rather than attempt to measure quality, we examine whether certain types of state supreme courts are more forwardlooking than others. States are likely to desire forward-looking behavior among judges because it can protect judicial legitimacy, help states to control policy, and could be more efficient than myopic behavior. Using a recent innovation in matching called covariate-balancing propensity scores, we find that the U.S. Supreme Court is equally likely to review and reverse decisions by judges regardless of their selection or retention methods. These results suggest that state supreme court justices, no matter their paths of getting to (and staying on) their courts, are roughly equal in terms of forward-looking behavior.

show abstract

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

Cited by 11 publications

References 27 publications

Pushing Constitutional Limits in the U.S. States: Legislative Professionalism and Judicial Review of State Laws by the U.S. Supreme Court

Pushing Constitutional Limits in the U.S. States: Legislative Professionalism and Judicial Review of State Laws by the U.S. Supreme Court

How Supreme Court Justices Supervise Ideologically Distant States

Nominating Commissions, Judicial Retention, and Forward-Looking Behavior on State Supreme Courts: An Empirical Examination of Selection and Retention Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About