1932

Abstract

Judicial decisions play an important role in shaping public policy. Recognizing this, interest groups and other entities lobby judges in an attempt to translate their policy preferences into law. One of the primary vehicles for doing so is the amicus curiae brief. Through these legal briefs, amici can attempt to influence judicial outcomes while attending to organizational maintenance concerns. This article examines scholarship on the use of amicus briefs pertaining to five main areas: () why amicus briefs are filed, () who files amicus briefs and in what venues, () the content of amicus briefs, () the influence of amicus briefs, and () normative issues implicated in the amicus practice. In addition to presenting a critical review of the scholarship in these areas, this article also provides suggestions for future research on amicus briefs.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-031248
2018-10-13
2024-06-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/14/1/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-031248.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-031248&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alarie BRD, Green AJ 2010. Interventions at the Supreme Court of Canada: accuracy, affiliation, and acceptance. Osgoode Hall Law J 48:381–410
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Angell E 1967. The amicus curiae: American development of English institutions. Int. Comp. Law Q. 16:1017–44
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bailey MA, Kamoie B, Maltzman F 2005. Signals from the tenth justice: the political role of the solicitor general in Supreme Court decision making. Am. J. Political Sci. 49:72–85
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Banner S 2003. The myth of the neutral amicus: American courts and their friends, 1790–1890. Const. Comment. 20:131–50
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bartholomeusz L 2005. The amicus curiae before international courts and tribunals. Non-State Actors Int. Law 5:209–86
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Black RC, Boyd CL 2010. US Supreme Court agenda setting and the role of litigant status. J. Law Econ. Organ. 28:286–312
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Black RC, Owens RJ 2012. The Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court: Executive Influence and Judicial Decisions. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  8. Box-Steffensmeier JM, Christenson DP 2014. The evolution and formation of amicus curiae networks. Soc. Netw. 36:82–96
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Box-Steffensmeier JM, Christenson DP, Hitt M 2013. Quality over quantity: amici influence and judicial decision making. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 107:446–60
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bradley RC, Gardner P 1985. Underdogs, upperdogs, and the use of the amicus brief: trends and explanations. Justice Syst. J. 10:78–96
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brodie I 2002. Friends of the Court: The Privileging of Interest Group Litigants in Canada Albany: State Univ. N.Y. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Buckler KG 2014. Supreme Court outcomes in criminal justice cases (1994–2012 terms): an examination of status differential and amici curiae effects. Crim. Justice Policy Rev. 26:773–804
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Caldeira GA, Wright JR 1988. Organized interests and agenda setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 82:1109–27
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Caldeira GA, Wright JR 1990. Amici curiae before the Supreme Court: Who participates, when, and how much. J. Politics 52:782–806
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Campbell AL 2002. Raising the bar: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the ACLU Women's Rights Project. Tex. J. Women Law 11:157–243
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Chang RS, Wang K 2009. Democratizing the courts: how an amicus brief helped organize the Asian American community to support marriage equality. UCLA Asian Pac. Am. Law J. 14:22–32
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Cichowski RA 2016. The European Court of Human Rights, amicus curiae, and violence against women. Law Soc. Rev. 50:890–919
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cole D 1984. Strategies of difference: litigating for women's rights in a man's world. Law Inequal 2:33–96
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Collins PM Jr 2004. Friends of the court: examining the influence of amicus curiae participation in U.S. Supreme Court litigation. Law Soc. Rev. 38:807–32
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Collins PM Jr 2007. Lobbyists before the U.S. Supreme Court: investigating the influence of amicus curiae briefs. Political Res. Q. 60:55–70
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Collins PM Jr 2008.a Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Collins PM Jr 2008.b Amici curiae and dissensus on the U.S. Supreme Court. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 5:143–70
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Collins PM Jr 2013. Interest groups in the judicial arena. New Directions in Interest Group Politics M Grossmann 221–37 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Collins PM Jr., Corley PC, Hamner J 2014. Me too? An investigation of repetition in U.S. Supreme Court amicus curiae briefs. Judicature 97:228–34
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Collins PM Jr., Corley PC, Hamner J 2015. The influence of amicus curiae briefs on U.S. Supreme Court opinion content. Law Soc. Rev. 49:917–44
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Collins PM Jr., Martinek WL 2010.a Who participates as amici curiae in the U.S. courts of appeals. Judicature 94:128–36
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Collins PM Jr., Martinek WL 2010.b Friends of the circuits: interest group influence on the U.S. courts of appeals. Soc. Sci. Q. 91:397–414
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Collins PM Jr., Martinek WL 2015. Judges and friends: the influence of amici curiae on U.S. court of appeals judges. Am. Politics Res. 43:255–82
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Collins PM Jr., McCarthy LA 2017. Friends and interveners: interest group litigation in a comparative context. J. Law Courts 5:55–80
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Collins PM Jr., Solowiej LA 2007. Interest group participation, competition, and conflict in the U.S. Supreme Court. Law Soc. Inq. 32:955–84
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Comparato SA 2003. Amici Curiae and Strategic Behavior in State Supreme Courts. Westport, CT: Praeger
  32. Corbally SF, Bross DC, Flango VE 2004. Filing of amicus curiae briefs in state courts of last resort: 1960–2000. Justice Syst. J. 25:39–56
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Covey FM 1959. Amicus curiae: friend of the court. DePaul Law Rev 9:30–37
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Cummings S, Eagly IV 2001. A critical reflection on law and organizing. UCLA Law Rev 48:443–517
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Day JG 2001. Words that counted—a vignette. Case Western Res. Law Rev. 52:373–74
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Deen RE, Ignagni J, Meernik J 2003. The solicitor general as amicus, 1953–2000: How influential. Judicature 87:60–71
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Dolidze AV 2012. Making international property law: the role of amici curiae in international judicial decision-making. Syracuse J. Int. Law Commer. 40:115–48
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Edwards LH 2017. Telling stories in the Supreme Court: voices briefs and the role of democracy in constitutional deliberation. Yale J. Law Fem. 29:29–91
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Ehrlich S 2017. Ministering (in)justice: the Supreme Court's misreliance on abortion regret in Gonzalez v. Carhart. Nev. Law J 17:599–617
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Ennis BL 1984. Effective amicus briefs. Cathol. Univ. Law Rev. 33:603–9
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Epstein L 1985. Conservatives in Court Knoxville: Univ. Tenn. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Epstein L 1993. Interest group litigation during the Rehnquist Court era. J. Law Politics 9:639–717
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Epstein L 1994. Exploring the participation of organized interests in state court litigation. Political Res. Q. 47:335–51
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Epstein L, Knight J 1998. Mapping out the strategic terrain: the informational role of amici curiae. Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches CW Clayton, H Gillman 215–35 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Epstein L, Kobylka JF 1992. The Supreme Court and Legal Change: Abortion and the Death Penalty Chapel Hill: Univ. N.C. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Feldman A 2017. Opinion construction in the Roberts Court. Law Policy 39:192–209
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Feldman A, Kappner A 2016. Finding certainty in cert: an empirical analysis of the factors involved in Supreme Court certiorari decisions from 2001–2015. Villanova Law Rev 61:795–842
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Flango VE, Bross DC, Corbally S 2006. Amicus curiae briefs: the court's perspective. Justice Syst. J. 27:180–90
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Fletcher MLM 2013. The utility of amicus briefs in the Supreme Court's Indian cases. Am. Indian Law J. 2:38–75
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Garcia RJ 2008. A democratic theory of amicus advocacy. Fla. State Univ. Law Rev. 35:315–58
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Gleason SA 2018. The dynamics of legal networks: state attorney general amicus brief coalition formation. Justice Syst. J. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Gleason SA, Provost C 2016. Representing the states before the U.S. Supreme Court: state amicus brief participation, the policy-making environment and the Fourth Amendment. Publius J. Fed. 46:248–73
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Goelzhauser G, Vouvalis N 2013. State coordinating institutions and agenda setting on the U.S. Supreme Court. Am. Politics Res. 41:819–38
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Goelzhauser G, Vouvalis N 2015. Amicus coalition heterogeneity and signaling credibility in Supreme Court agenda setting. Publius J. Fed. 45:99–116
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Hagle TM, Spaeth HJ 2009. The presence of lower-court amici as an aspect of Supreme Court agenda setting. Justice Syst. J. 30:1–13
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Hakman N 1966. Lobbying the supreme court-an appraisal of “political science folklore.”. Fordham Law Rev 35:15–50
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Hansford TG 2004.a Information provision, organizational constraints, and the decision to submit an amicus curiae brief in a U.S. Supreme Court Case. Political Res. Q. 57:219–30
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hansford TG 2004.b Lobbying strategies, venue selection, and organized interest involvement at the U.S. Supreme Court. Am. Politics Res. 32:170–97
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Hansford TG 2010. The legal advocacy network Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Political Sci. Assoc Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Hansford TG 2011. The dynamics of interest representation at the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Res. Q. 64:749–64
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Hansford TG, Johnson K 2014. The supply of amicus curiae briefs in the market for information at the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Syst. J. 35:362–82
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Harper FV, Etherington ED 1953. Lobbyists before the court. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 101:1172–77
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Harris MJ 2000. Amicus curiae: Friend or foe? The limits of friendship in American jurisprudence. Suffolk J. Trial Appell. Advocacy 5:1–18
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Hassler GL, O'Connor K 1986. Woodsy witchdoctors versus judicial guerrillas: the role and impact of competing interest groups in environmental litigation. Boston Coll. Environ. Aff. Law Rev. 13:487–520
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Hazelton ML, Hinkle RK, Spriggs JF 2017. The influence of unique information in briefs on Supreme Court decision-making Univ. Buffalo, NY. https://www.buffalo.edu/content/dam/www/baldycenter/speakers/Hinkle.paper.docx
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Hojnacki M, Marchetti K, Baumgartner FR, Berry JM, Kimball DC, Leech B 2015. Assessing business advantage in Washington lobbying. Interest Groups Advocacy 4:205–24
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Holyoke TT 2003. Choosing battlegrounds: interest group lobbying across multiple venues. Political Res Q 56:325–36
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Huang A, Roemheld L 2016. Constitutional precedent of amicus briefs. arXiv1606.04672
  69. Hull KE 2017. The role of social science expertise in same-sex marriage litigation. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 13:471–91
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Immel I 2011. Access to European Justice for Environmental Civil Society Organizations Frankfurt am Main, Ger: Peter Lang
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Ivers G, O'Connor K 1987. Friends as foes: the amicus curiae participation and effectiveness of the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans for Effective Law Enforcement in criminal cases, 1969–1982. Law Policy 9:161–78
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Jonas O 2015. The participation of the amicus curiae institution in human rights litigation in Botswana and South Africa: a tale of two jurisdictions. J. Afr. Law 59:329–54
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Kane JB 2017. Lobbying justice(s)? Exploring the nature of amici influence in state supreme court decision making. State Politics Policy Q 17:251–74
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Katt WJ 2009. Roper and the scientific amicus. Jurimetrics 49:253–75
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Kearney JD, Merrill TW 2000. The influence of amicus curiae briefs on the Supreme Court. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 148:743–853
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Kim M, Vinson L 2009. Friends of the First Amendment? Amicus curiae briefs in free speech/press cases during the Warren and Burger Courts. J. Media Law Ethics 1:83–106
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Kochevar S 2013. Amici curiae in civil law jurisdictions. Yale Law J 122:1653–69
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Koshner AJ 1998. Solving the Puzzle of Interest Group Litigation. Westport, CT: Praeger
  79. Krislov S 1963. The amicus curiae brief: from friendship to advocacy. Yale Law J 72:694–721
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Laroche M 2009. Is the New York State Court of Appeals still “friendless?” An empirical study of amicus curiae participation. Albany Law Rev 72:701–60
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Larsen AO 2014. The trouble with amicus facts. Va. Law Rev. 100:1757–818
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Larsen AO, Devins N 2016. The amicus machine. Va. Law Rev. 102:1901–68
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Levit N 2010. Theorizing and litigating the rights of sexual minorities. Columbia J. Gend. Law 19:21–64
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Lynch KJ 2004. Best friends? Supreme Court law clerks on effective amicus curiae briefs. J. Law Politics 20:33–75
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Maltzman F, Wahlbeck PJ 2003. Salience or politics: New York Times coverage of the Supreme Court Presented at Annu. Meet. Midwest Political Sci. Assoc Chicago, IL:
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Manz WH 2002. Citations in Supreme Court opinions and briefs: a comparative study. Law Libr. J. 94:267–300
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Manzi L, Hall MEK 2017. Friends you can trust: a signaling theory of interest group litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court. Law Soc. Rev. 51:704–34
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Martinek WL 2006. Amici curiae in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Am. Politics Res. 34:803–24
    [Google Scholar]
  90. McCann MW 1994. Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  91. McGuire KT 1990. Obscenity, libertarian values and decision making in the Supreme Court. Am. Politics Q. 18:47–67
    [Google Scholar]
  92. McGuire KT 1995. Repeat players in the Supreme Court: the role of experienced lawyers in litigation success. J. Politics 57:187–96
    [Google Scholar]
  93. McGuire KT 1998. Explaining executive success in the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Res. Q. 51:505–26
    [Google Scholar]
  94. McGuire KT, Caldeira GA 1993. Lawyers, organized interests, and the law of obscenity: agenda setting in the Supreme Court. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 87:717–26
    [Google Scholar]
  95. McLauchlan JS 2005. Congressional Participation as Amicus Curiae Before the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: LFB Sch. Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Mohan SC 2010. The amicus curiae: Friends no more. Singap. J. Leg. Stud. 2010:352–74
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Morris TR 1987. States before the U.S. Supreme Court: state attorneys general as amicus curiae. Judicature 70:298–306
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Morton FL, Allen A 2001. Feminists and the courts: measuring success in interest group litigation in Canada. Can. J. Political Sci. 34:55–84
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Nicholson C, Collins PM Jr 2008. The solicitor general's amicus curiae strategies in the Supreme Court. Am. Politics Res. 36:382–415
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Nicholson-Crotty S 2007. State merit amicus participation and federalism outcomes in the U.S. Supreme Court. Publius J. Fed. 37:599–612
    [Google Scholar]
  101. O'Connor K 1983. The amicus curiae role of the U.S. Solicitor General in Supreme Court litigation. Judicature 66:256–64
    [Google Scholar]
  102. O'Connor K, Epstein L 1981. Amicus curiae participation in U.S. Supreme Court litigation: an appraisal of “Hakman's folklore.”. Law Soc. Rev. 16:311–20
    [Google Scholar]
  103. O'Connor K, Epstein L 1982. The importance of interest group involvement in employment discrimination litigation. Howard Law J 25:709–29
    [Google Scholar]
  104. O'Connor K, Epstein L 1983.a The rise of conservative interest group litigation. J. Politics 45:479–89
    [Google Scholar]
  105. O'Connor K, Epstein L 1983.b Court rules and workload: a case study of rules governing amicus curiae participation. Justice Syst. J. 8:35–45
    [Google Scholar]
  106. O'Connor K, Epstein L 1983.c Beyond legislative lobbying: women's rights groups and the Supreme Court. Judicature 67:134–43
    [Google Scholar]
  107. O'Connor SD 1996. Henry Clay and the Supreme Court. Regis. Ky. Hist. Soc. 94:353–62
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Owens RJ, Epstein L 2005. Amici curiae during the Rehnquist years. Judicature 89:127–32
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Pacelle RL Jr 2003. Between Law and Politics: The Solicitor General and the Structuring of Race, Gender, and Reproductive Rights Litigation College Station: Tex. A&M Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Pacelle RL Jr., Scheb JM II, Sharma HK, Scott DH 2017. The influence of the solicitor general as amicus curiae on the Roberts Court, 2005–2014: a research note. Justice Syst. J. 38:202–8
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Paltrow LM 1986. Amicus brief: Richard Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Women's Rights Law Rep 9:3–25
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Perkins J 2016. Friends of the state courts: interest groups and state courts of last resort PhD Diss., Dep. Political Sci., Univ. N. Tex Denton, TX:
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Perkins J 2018. Why file? Organized interests and amicus briefs in state courts of last resort. Justice Syst. J. 39:39–53
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Perry HW Jr 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Provost C 2011. When to befriend the court? Examining state amici curiae participation before the U.S. Supreme Court. State Politics Policy Q 11:4–27
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Puro S 1971. The role of amicus curiae in the United States Supreme Court: 1920–1966 PhD Diss., Dep. Political Sci State Univ. N.Y. Buffalo:
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Radmilovic V 2013. Governmental interventions and judicial decision making: the Supreme Court of Canada in the age of the Charter. Can. J. Political Sci. 46:323–44
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Rebe R 2013. Amicus curiae and dissenting votes at the Texas Supreme Court. Justice Syst. J. 34:171–88
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Roesch R, Golding SL, Hans VP, Reppucci ND 1991. Social science and the courts: the role of amicus curiae briefs. Law Hum. Behav. 15:1–11
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Rosenthal JS, Yoon AH 2011. Judicial ghostwriting: authorship on the Supreme Court. Cornell Law Rev 96:1307–43
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Rushin R, O'Connor K 1987. Judicial lobbying: interest groups, the Supreme Court and issues of freedom of expression and speech. Southeast. Political Rev. 15:47–65
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Rustad M, Koenig T 1993. The Supreme Court and junk social science: selective distortion in amicus briefs. N.C. Law Rev. 72:91–162
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Salisbury RH 1984. Interest representation: the dominance of institutions. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 78:64–76
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Salokar RM 1992. The Solicitor General: The Politics of Law Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Salzman R, Williams CJ, Calvin BT 2011. The determinants of the number of amicus briefs filed before the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–2001. Justice Syst. J. 32:293–313
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Samuels SU 2004. First among Friends: Interest Groups, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Right to Privacy Westport, CT: Praeger
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Sarat A, Scheingold SA 2006. Cause Lawyers and Social Movements Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Scalia A, Garner BA 2008. Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Schattschneider EE 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Scheppele KL, Walker JL 1991. The litigation strategies of interest groups. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements JL Walker Jr Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Scott J 2016. You got a friend in me: facts and Supreme Court amicus briefs. Georgetown J. Leg. Ethics 29:1353–67
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Segal JA 1988. Amicus curiae briefs by the solicitor general during the Warren and Burger courts: a research note. West. Political Q. 41:135–44
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Segal JA, Reedy CD 1988. The Supreme Court and sex discrimination: the role of the solicitor general. West. Political Q. 41:553–68
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Shelton D 1994. The participation of nongovernmental organizations in international judicial proceedings. Am. J. Int. Law 88:611–42
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Sill KL, Metzgar ET, Rouse SM 2013. Media coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court: How do journalists assess the importance of court decisions. Political Commun 30:58–80
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Simard LS 2008. An empirical study of amici curiae in federal court: a fine balance of access, efficiency, and adversarialism. Rev. Litig. 27:669–711
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Simmons OS 2009. Picking friends from the crowd: amicus participation as political symbolism. Conn. Law Rev. 42:185–233
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Slotnick EE, Segal JA 1998. Television News and the Supreme Court: All the News That's Fit to Air New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Solberg RS, Waltenburg EN 2006. Why do interest groups engage the judiciary? Policy wishes and structural needs. Soc. Sci. Q. 87:558–72
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Solimine ME 2012. State amici, collective action, and the development of federalism doctrine. Ga. Law Rev. 46:355–406
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Solimine ME 2016. Retooling the amicus machine. Va. Law Rev. Online 102:151–67
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Solowiej LA, Collins PM Jr 2009. Counteractive lobbying in the U.S. Supreme Court. Am. Politics Res. 37:670–99
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Songer DR, Kuersten A 1995. The success of amici in state supreme courts. Political Res. Q. 48:31–42
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Songer DR, Kuersten A, Kaheny E 2000. Why the haves don't always come out ahead: Repeat players meet amici curiae for the disadvantaged. Political Res. Q. 53:537–56
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Songer DR, Sheehan RS 1993. Interest group success in the courts: amicus participation in the Supreme Court. Political Res. Q. 46:339–54
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Spill R 2001. Choosing among the branches: strategic advocacy by interest groups. Am. Rev. Politics 22:375–95
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Spriggs JF II, Wahlbeck PJ 1997. Amicus curiae and the role of information at the Supreme Court. Political Res. Q. 50:365–86
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Sungaila M-C 1999. Effective amicus practice before the United States Supreme Court: a case study. South. Calif. Rev. Law Women's Stud. 8:187–96
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Swenson K 2016. Amicus curiae briefs and the US Supreme Court: when liberal and conservative groups support the same party. Justice Syst. J. 37:1–11
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Szmer J, Humphries Ginn M 2014. Examining the effects of information, attorney capability, and amicus participation on U.S. Supreme Court Decision Making. Am. Politics Res. 42:441–71
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Teles SM 2008. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Van den Eynde L 2013. An empirical look at the amicus curiae practice of human rights NGOs before the European Court of Human Rights. Neth. Q. Hum. Rights 31:271–313
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Viljoen F, Abebe AK 2014. Amicus curiae participation before regional human rights bodies in Africa. J. Afr. Law 58:22–44
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Vose CE 1955. NAACP strategy in the covenant cases. Case West. Reserve Law Rev. 6:101–45
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Vose CE 1959. Caucasians Only: The Supreme Court, the N.A.A.C.P., and the Restrictive Covenant Cases. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  156. Wahlbeck PJ, Spriggs JF II, Sigelman L 2002. Ghostwriters on the court? A stylistic analysis of U.S. Supreme Court opinion drafts. Am. Politics Res. 30:166–92
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Wasby SL 1995. Race Relations Litigation in an Age of Complexity Charlottesville: Univ. Va. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016)
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Wofford CB 2015. Assessing the anecdotes: amicus curiae, legal rules, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Syst. J. 36:274–94
    [Google Scholar]
  160. Wohlfarth PC 2009. The tenth justice? Consequences of politicization in the solicitor general's office. J. Politics 71:224–37
    [Google Scholar]
  161. Zuber K, Sommer U, Parent J 2015. Setting the agenda of the United States Supreme Court: organized interests and the decision to file an amicus curiae brief at cert. Justice Syst. J. 36:119–37
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-031248
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error