The Use of Amicus Briefs

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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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)
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
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.
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
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:
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
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:
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
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
127. Sarat A, Scheingold SA 2006. Cause Lawyers and Social Movements Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
128. Scalia A, Garner BA 2008. Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West
129. Schattschneider EE 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston
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
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
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
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
158. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016)
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]