The Tenth Justice? Consequences of Politicization in the Solicitor General's Office

Wohlfarth, Patrick C.

doi:10.1017/s0022381608090142

Cited by 51 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, existing studies have been limited in their ability to study the effects of salience on Court decision making. In many instances, scholars have relied on the ex post measure of case salience to study intra-Court decision making and bargaining ðe.g., Maltzman et al 2000;McAtee and McGuire 2007;Corley 2008;Wohlfarth 2009;Cross et al 2010Þ. Less common, but nevertheless important, are studies of separation-of-powers interactions ðe.g., Wohlfarth 2009Þ and the judicial hierarchy ðBaird 2004Þ.…”

Section: Effects Of the Limitations On Existing Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the Political Salience of Supreme Court Cases

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While Supreme Court cases are generally salient or important, some are many degrees more important than others. A wide range of theoretical and empirical work throughout the study of judicial politics implicates this varying salience. Some work considers salience a variable to be explained, perhaps with judicial behavior the explanatory factor. The currently dominant measure of salience is the existence of newspaper coverage of a decision, but decisions themselves are an act of judicial politics. Because this coverage measure is affected only after a decision is announced, using it limits the types of inferences we can draw about salience. We develop a measure of latent salience, one that builds on existing work, but that also explicitly incorporates and models predecision information. This measure has the potential to ameliorate concerns of causal inference, put research findings on sounder footing, and add to our understanding of judicial behavior.

show abstract

Section: Effects Of the Limitations On Existing Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the Political Salience of Supreme Court Cases

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Next, there is considerable evidence to suggest that the U.S. Solicitor General influences justices to vote in favor of the federal government (Black and Owens ; Wohlfarth ). To measure whether the U.S.…”

Section: Analytical Matching Strategy and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Owens¹,

Wohlfarth²

2014

Law Soc Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines how institutional design leads state governments to win their cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. We analyze whether states are more likely to prevail on the merits when they create a formal solicitor general office and have an attorney from that office argue their cases before the Court. We employ an analytical matching approach and find that attorneys from state solicitor general offices are significantly more likely to win their cases compared to other kinds of state attorneys. Accordingly, if states prioritize victory before the Court, they should consider creating state solicitor general offices and granting those solicitors general the authority to control their appellate litigation.

show abstract

“…The clearest of these signals comes from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). An abundance of literature suggests that the Court pays significant attention to OSG recommendations, both in terms of helping the Court shape the content of its agenda (Black & Owens, 2009;Caldeira & Wright, 1988, Perry, 1991 and even when deciding a case in a particular manner (Black & Owens, 2012;Wohlfarth, 2009). Whether because it speaks for the preferences of the executive branch, or because it is a trusted repeat player, the OSG's elective involvement is an indication that resolution of the legal issue is considered important by the federal government.…”

Section: Explaining Evenly Divided Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining the (Non)Occurrence of Equal Divisions on the U.S. Supreme Court

Black

Bryan²

2014

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When the U.S. Supreme Court sits with an even number of justices participating, there is a risk that the Court will be deadlocked in a tied vote. While this outcome awards the individual respondent with a victory, it also preserves circuit splits and other ambiguities in the law. In this article, we examine the conditions under which an even-membered Supreme Court actually results in a tie vote. We argue that the Court recognizes the potentially damaging consequences of 4-4 rulings and seeks to avoid them when those consequences would be most severe. Consistent with that conjecture, we find that ties are less likely when a decision is necessary to resolve a dispute in the lower courts and when cases are important to the executive branch.

show abstract

The Tenth Justice? Consequences of Politicization in the Solicitor General's Office

Cited by 51 publications

References 22 publications

Measuring the Political Salience of Supreme Court Cases

Measuring the Political Salience of Supreme Court Cases

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

Explaining the (Non)Occurrence of Equal Divisions on the U.S. Supreme Court

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About