Solicitor General, Presidential Appointment, and the Role of the Federal Government in Supreme Court Decision Making (original) (raw)

Abstract

This study focuses on the relationship between the Solicitor General and the Supreme Court in cases involving the federal government as a direct party in litigation. Particular attention is given to the impact ofpresidential appointments on the success of the federal government in litigation. The analyses indicate that there are direrences in success rates for the federal government when we control for the effects of different presidential administrations, diflerent solicitors general, issue areas, and changes in the Court's ideological composition over time. Mu Itivariate analysis demonstrates that changes in the Supreme Court brought about by presidential appointment combined with the ideological position taken by the solicitor general in the case has a significant impact on the success of the federal government in litigation.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (31)

  1. Caldiera, Gregory A., and John R. Wright. 1988. "Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court." American Political Science Review 82: 1109-27.
  2. Canon, Bradley C., and Michael Giles. 1972. "Recurring Litigants: Fed- eral Agencies Before the Supreme Court." Western Political Quarterly Caplan, Lincoln. 1987. The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the 25: 183-91.
  3. Rule o f h w . New York: Random House. Supreme Court Decision Making 73
  4. Crowley, Donald W. 1987. "Judicial Review of Administrative Agencies: Does the Type of Agency Matter?" Western Political Quarterly 3 1 :265- 83.
  5. Gates, John, and Jeffrey Cohen. 1986. "Presidents, Justices, and Racial Equality Cases, 1954-1984." Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
  6. Handberg, Roger. 1979. "The Supreme Court and Administrative Agen- cies: 1965-1978." Journal of Contemporary Law 6:161-76.
  7. Handberg, Roger, and Harold F. Hill. 1980. "Court Curbing, Court Rever- sals, and Judicial Review: The Supreme Court versus Congress." Law and Society Review 14:309-22.
  8. O'Connor, Karen. 1983. "The Amicus Curiae Role of the U.S. Solicitor General in Supreme Court Litigation." Judicature 66:256-64.
  9. Pritchett, Herman. 1948. The Roosevelt Court: A Study in Judicial Politics and Values 1937-1947. New York: McMillan.
  10. Provine, Doris M. 1980. Case Selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  11. Puro, Steven. 1971. "The Role of the Amicus Curiae in the United States Supreme Court." Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.
  12. Rohde, David, and Harold Spaeth. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
  13. Salokar, Rebecca M. 1987. "The Solicitor General Before the Supreme Court, 1959-1982: A Descriptive Analysis." Presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association.
  14. Salokar, Rebecca M. 1992. The Solicitor General: The Politics of Law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  15. Schubert, Glendon. 1965. The Judicial Mind. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
  16. Scigliano, Robert. 1971. The Supreme Court and the Presidency. New York: Free Press.
  17. Segal, Jeffrey A. 1984. "Predicting Supreme Court Cases Probabalisti- cally: The Search and Seizure Cases, 1962-1981 ." American Political Science Review 78:891-900.
  18. Segal, Jeffrey A. 1988. "Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General During the Warren and Burger Courts." Western Political Quarterly Segal, Jeffrey A. 1990. "Supreme Court Support for the Solicitor General: The Effect of Presidential Appointments." Western Political Quarterly Segal, Jeffrey A. 1991. "Courts, Executives, and Legislatures," in John Gates and Charles A. Johnson, eds., The American Courts: A Critical Assessment. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
  19. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Albert Cover. 1989. "Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices." American Political Science Review 83557-65.
  20. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cheryl D. Reedy. 1988. "The Supreme Court and Sex Discrimination: The Role of the Solicitor General." Western Po- litical Quarterly 41:553-68.
  21. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  22. Sheehan, Reginald S. 1990. "Administrative Agencies and the Court: A Reexamination of the Impact of Agency 'Qpe on Decisional Outcomes." Western Political Quarterly 43975-85.
  23. Sheehan, Reginald S., William Mishler, and Donald R. Songer. 1990. "Blind Justice? Ideology, Resources, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court." Presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA.
  24. Songer, Donald R., and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1990. "The Impact of Amicus Briefs on Supreme Court Decisionmaking." Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA.
  25. Spaeth, Harold J. 1991. United States Supreme Court Data Base, 1953- Z989. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
  26. Spaeth, Harold J., and Stuart Teger. 1982. "Activism and Restraint: A Cloak for the Justices' Policy Preferences," in Stephen C. Halpern and Clark M. Lamb, eds., Supreme Court Activism and Restraint. Lex- ington, MA: Lexington Books.
  27. Tanenhaus, Joseph. 1960. "Supreme Court Attitudes Toward Federal Ad- ministrative Agencies." Journal of Politics 22502-24. 41: 135-44. 43: 137-52.
  28. Supreme Court Decision Making 75
  29. Tanenhaus, Joseph, Marvin Schick, Matthew Muraskin, and Daniel Rosen. 1963. "The Supreme Court's Certiorari Jurisdiction: Cue Theory," in Glendon Schubert, ed., Judicial Decision-making. New York: Free Press. 1980. "The Cue Theory of Supreme Court Certiorari Jurisdiction: A Reconsideration." Journal of Politics 42934-46.
  30. Ulmer, Sydney, William Hintze, and Louise Kirklosky. 1972. "The Deci- sion to Grant or Deny Certiorari: Further Consideration of Cue Theory." Law and Society Review 6:637-43.
  31. Teger, Stuart H., and Douglas Kosinski.