Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation
Amicus curiae participation is a staple of interest group activity in the U.S. Supreme Court. While a reasonably large body of scholarship has accumulated regarding the effectiveness of this method of participation, little attention has been paid to examining the reasons why amicus participation mig...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Law & society review 2004-12, Vol.38 (4), p.807-832 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 832 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 807 |
container_title | Law & society review |
container_volume | 38 |
creator | Collins, Paul M. |
description | Amicus curiae participation is a staple of interest group activity in the U.S. Supreme Court. While a reasonably large body of scholarship has accumulated regarding the effectiveness of this method of participation, little attention has been paid to examining the reasons why amicus participation might increase litigation success. In this article, I test two separate, but not mutually exclusive, theories as to why amicus briefs may be effective. The first, the affected groups hypothesis, suggests amicus briefs are influential because they signal to the Court how many groups and individuals will be potentially affected by the decision. The second, the information hypothesis, proposes that amicus briefs are effective because they provide the Court with added information that buttresses the arguments of the direct parties. When subjected to empirical verification, the results indicate that not only does amicus participation increase litigation success, but also that this influence may be best explained by the information hypothesis. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.0023-9216.2004.00067.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_37999306</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>1555091</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>1555091</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4797-c4dd5fe61d77220804856feff51c6c059a9387cda63d7231a8377c133a44a7d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU1P3DAQQC3USt1S_kEPVg-9JfVHbMeol9UKFtC2RSwtR8tyHOqQOIudiOXf19kgKvVUH2yN573RaAYAiFGO0_nS5AgRmkmCeU4QKlKIuMj3R2CBWYEyVkr6BixeoXfgfYxNggijbAG68-CsryLsazj8tnDVj2E4hWd73Tnv_P3h89LX7Wi9sRO17JwZI1yNwWkLr3UYnHE7PbjeQ-fhz3ybw-24C7Z7qQY3bnD3B-ADeFvrNtqTl_cY3J6f3a4uss2P9eVquclMIaRId1Wx2nJcCUEIKlFRMl7bumbYcIOY1JKWwlSa00oQinVJhTCYUl0UWlT0GHyey-5C_zjaOKjORWPbVnvbj1FRIaWkiCfw0z9gkzr2qTVFCJekoBwlqJwhE_oYg63VLrhOh2eFkZp2oBo1jVdN41XTDtRhB2qf1K-z-uRa-_zfntostzdcJP3jrDdx6MNfnTGGJE7pbE67ONj9a1qHB5VkwdTd97X6dcO_ra9Krq7oH5enpDw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>226924360</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>Collins, Paul M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Collins, Paul M.</creatorcontrib><description>Amicus curiae participation is a staple of interest group activity in the U.S. Supreme Court. While a reasonably large body of scholarship has accumulated regarding the effectiveness of this method of participation, little attention has been paid to examining the reasons why amicus participation might increase litigation success. In this article, I test two separate, but not mutually exclusive, theories as to why amicus briefs may be effective. The first, the affected groups hypothesis, suggests amicus briefs are influential because they signal to the Court how many groups and individuals will be potentially affected by the decision. The second, the information hypothesis, proposes that amicus briefs are effective because they provide the Court with added information that buttresses the arguments of the direct parties. When subjected to empirical verification, the results indicate that not only does amicus participation increase litigation success, but also that this influence may be best explained by the information hypothesis.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0023-9216</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1540-5893</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.0023-9216.2004.00067.x</identifier><identifier>CODEN: LWSRAA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing</publisher><subject>Amicus curiae ; Amicus curiae briefs ; Effectiveness studies ; Interest groups ; Judicial process ; Judiciary ; Law ; Legal arguments ; Legal briefs ; Litigants ; Litigation ; Lobbying ; Lower courts ; Petitioners ; Political interest groups ; Public opinion ; Supreme Court ; Supreme Court decisions ; U.S.A ; Writ of certiorari</subject><ispartof>Law & society review, 2004-12, Vol.38 (4), p.807-832</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2004 The Law and Society Association</rights><rights>Copyright Blackwell Publishers Dec 2004</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4797-c4dd5fe61d77220804856feff51c6c059a9387cda63d7231a8377c133a44a7d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4797-c4dd5fe61d77220804856feff51c6c059a9387cda63d7231a8377c133a44a7d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1555091$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/1555091$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,800,1412,12826,27325,27905,27906,33755,45555,45556,57998,58231</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Collins, Paul M.</creatorcontrib><title>Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation</title><title>Law & society review</title><description>Amicus curiae participation is a staple of interest group activity in the U.S. Supreme Court. While a reasonably large body of scholarship has accumulated regarding the effectiveness of this method of participation, little attention has been paid to examining the reasons why amicus participation might increase litigation success. In this article, I test two separate, but not mutually exclusive, theories as to why amicus briefs may be effective. The first, the affected groups hypothesis, suggests amicus briefs are influential because they signal to the Court how many groups and individuals will be potentially affected by the decision. The second, the information hypothesis, proposes that amicus briefs are effective because they provide the Court with added information that buttresses the arguments of the direct parties. When subjected to empirical verification, the results indicate that not only does amicus participation increase litigation success, but also that this influence may be best explained by the information hypothesis.</description><subject>Amicus curiae</subject><subject>Amicus curiae briefs</subject><subject>Effectiveness studies</subject><subject>Interest groups</subject><subject>Judicial process</subject><subject>Judiciary</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>Legal arguments</subject><subject>Legal briefs</subject><subject>Litigants</subject><subject>Litigation</subject><subject>Lobbying</subject><subject>Lower courts</subject><subject>Petitioners</subject><subject>Political interest groups</subject><subject>Public opinion</subject><subject>Supreme Court</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><subject>U.S.A</subject><subject>Writ of certiorari</subject><issn>0023-9216</issn><issn>1540-5893</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU1P3DAQQC3USt1S_kEPVg-9JfVHbMeol9UKFtC2RSwtR8tyHOqQOIudiOXf19kgKvVUH2yN573RaAYAiFGO0_nS5AgRmkmCeU4QKlKIuMj3R2CBWYEyVkr6BixeoXfgfYxNggijbAG68-CsryLsazj8tnDVj2E4hWd73Tnv_P3h89LX7Wi9sRO17JwZI1yNwWkLr3UYnHE7PbjeQ-fhz3ybw-24C7Z7qQY3bnD3B-ADeFvrNtqTl_cY3J6f3a4uss2P9eVquclMIaRId1Wx2nJcCUEIKlFRMl7bumbYcIOY1JKWwlSa00oQinVJhTCYUl0UWlT0GHyey-5C_zjaOKjORWPbVnvbj1FRIaWkiCfw0z9gkzr2qTVFCJekoBwlqJwhE_oYg63VLrhOh2eFkZp2oBo1jVdN41XTDtRhB2qf1K-z-uRa-_zfntostzdcJP3jrDdx6MNfnTGGJE7pbE67ONj9a1qHB5VkwdTd97X6dcO_ra9Krq7oH5enpDw</recordid><startdate>200412</startdate><enddate>200412</enddate><creator>Collins, Paul M.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing</general><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200412</creationdate><title>Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation</title><author>Collins, Paul M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4797-c4dd5fe61d77220804856feff51c6c059a9387cda63d7231a8377c133a44a7d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Amicus curiae</topic><topic>Amicus curiae briefs</topic><topic>Effectiveness studies</topic><topic>Interest groups</topic><topic>Judicial process</topic><topic>Judiciary</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>Legal arguments</topic><topic>Legal briefs</topic><topic>Litigants</topic><topic>Litigation</topic><topic>Lobbying</topic><topic>Lower courts</topic><topic>Petitioners</topic><topic>Political interest groups</topic><topic>Public opinion</topic><topic>Supreme Court</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><topic>U.S.A</topic><topic>Writ of certiorari</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Collins, Paul M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Law & society review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Collins, Paul M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation</atitle><jtitle>Law & society review</jtitle><date>2004-12</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>807</spage><epage>832</epage><pages>807-832</pages><issn>0023-9216</issn><eissn>1540-5893</eissn><coden>LWSRAA</coden><abstract>Amicus curiae participation is a staple of interest group activity in the U.S. Supreme Court. While a reasonably large body of scholarship has accumulated regarding the effectiveness of this method of participation, little attention has been paid to examining the reasons why amicus participation might increase litigation success. In this article, I test two separate, but not mutually exclusive, theories as to why amicus briefs may be effective. The first, the affected groups hypothesis, suggests amicus briefs are influential because they signal to the Court how many groups and individuals will be potentially affected by the decision. The second, the information hypothesis, proposes that amicus briefs are effective because they provide the Court with added information that buttresses the arguments of the direct parties. When subjected to empirical verification, the results indicate that not only does amicus participation increase litigation success, but also that this influence may be best explained by the information hypothesis.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing</pub><doi>10.1111/j.0023-9216.2004.00067.x</doi><tpages>26</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0023-9216 |
ispartof | Law & society review, 2004-12, Vol.38 (4), p.807-832 |
issn | 0023-9216 1540-5893 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_37999306 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Sociological Abstracts; Jstor Complete Legacy |
subjects | Amicus curiae Amicus curiae briefs Effectiveness studies Interest groups Judicial process Judiciary Law Legal arguments Legal briefs Litigants Litigation Lobbying Lower courts Petitioners Political interest groups Public opinion Supreme Court Supreme Court decisions U.S.A Writ of certiorari |
title | Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T22%3A39%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Friends%20of%20the%20Court:%20Examining%20the%20Influence%20of%20Amicus%20Curiae%20Participation%20in%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20Litigation&rft.jtitle=Law%20&%20society%20review&rft.au=Collins,%20Paul%20M.&rft.date=2004-12&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=807&rft.epage=832&rft.pages=807-832&rft.issn=0023-9216&rft.eissn=1540-5893&rft.coden=LWSRAA&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.0023-9216.2004.00067.x&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E1555091%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=226924360&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=1555091&rfr_iscdi=true |