Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T04:33:53.202Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in American Politics

The Haves and Have-Nots in Supreme Court Representation and Participation, 2016 to 2021

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2024

Kirsten Widner  and
Anna Gunderson
Kirsten Widner
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee
Anna Gunderson
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin

Summary

Courts are often thought of as protectors of minority rights. What happens when the composition of courts changes such that politically disadvantaged groups expect a less favorable reception? This Element examines whether the increasing conservatism of the US Supreme Court during Donald Trump's presidency changed the behavior of litigants and amicus curiae. The authors test whether membership changes led to reduced filings by individuals and organizations representing marginalized groups and increased filings by businesses and conservative states and interest groups. The authors find substantial reductions in participation by the most politically disadvantaged and substantial increases in participation by the most conservative groups.
Get access

Keywords

Supreme Courtpolitical representationsocial constructionlitigantsamicus curiae
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in American Politics
Online ISBN: 9781009394352
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 09 January 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abi-Hassan, S., Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., Christenson, D. P., Kaufman, A. R., & Libgober, B. (2023). The ideologies of organized interests and amicus curiae briefs: Large-scale, social network imputation of ideal points. Political Analysis, 31(3), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achury, S., Casellas, J. P., Hofer, S. J., & Ward, M. (2023). The impact of racial representation on judicial legitimacy: White reactions to Latinos on the bench. Political Research Quarterly, 76(1), 158–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armaly, M., & Lane, E. (2023). Politicized battles: How vacancies and partisanship influence support for the supreme court. American Politics Research, 51(1), 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badas, A. (2023). Motivated reasoning and attitudes towards supreme court confirmation hearings: Evidence from five nominations and an experiment. Political Research Quarterly, 76(2), 540–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badas, A., & Stauffer, K. E. (2018). Someone like me: Descriptive representation and support for supreme court nominees. Political Research Quarterly, 71(1), 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, M. A., Kamoie, B., & Maltzman, F. (2005). Signals from the tenth justice: The political role of the solicitor general in supreme court decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 49(1), 72–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, V. (2004). The effect of politically salient decisions on the us supreme court’s agenda. The Journal of Politics, 66(3), 755–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, V. (2007). Answering the call of the court: How justices and litigants set the supreme court agenda. University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Bandes, S. (1990). The idea of a case. Stanford Law Review, 42(2), 227–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, L. (1988). Measuring policy change in the us supreme court. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 905–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bils, P., Rothenberg, L. S., & Smith, B. C. (2020). The amicus game. The Journal of Politics, 82(3), 1113–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, R. C., & Boyd, C. L. (2012). US supreme court agenda setting and the role of litigant status. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 28(2), 286–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, R. C., & Boyd, C. L. (2013). Selecting the select few: The discuss list and the us supreme court’s agenda-setting process. Social Science Quarterly, 94(4), 1124–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, R. C., & Owens, R. J. (2009). Agenda setting in the supreme court: The collision of policy and jurisprudence. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 1062–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, R. C., & Owens, R. J. (2011). Solicitor general influence and agenda setting on the us supreme court. Political Research Quarterly, 64(4), 765–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blocher, J., & Willinger, A. (2023). Does the second amendment make gun politics obsolete? Polity, 55(2), 363–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., Christenson, D. P., & Hitt, M. P. (2013). Quality over quantity: Amici influence and judicial decision making. American Political Science Review, 107(3) 446–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, C. L. (2015). Litigant status and trial court appeal mobilization. Law & Policy, 37(4), 294–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, C. L. (2016). Representation on the courts? The effects of trial judges’ sex and race. Political Research Quarterly, 69(4), 788–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braman, E. (2023). Institutional prospects: Exploring perceptions of past benefits and future risks from supreme court decisions and support for institutional change. Political Psychology, 44(1), 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burbank, S. B., & Farhang, S. (2017). Rights and retrenchment. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burbank, S. B., & Farhang, S. (2018). Rights and retrenchment in the Trump era. Fordham Law Review, 87, 37–64.Google Scholar
Burden, B. C. (2007). Personal roots of representation. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, G. A., & Wright, J. R. (1988). Organized interests and agenda setting in the US supreme court. American Political Science Review, 82(4), 1109–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, G. A., Wright, J. R., & Zorn, C. J. (2012). Organized interests and agenda setting in the US supreme court revisited. In 7th Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Paper, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2109497 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2109497Google Scholar
Cameron, C. M., Kastellec, J. P., & Park, J.- K. (2013). Voting for justices: Change and continuity in confirmation voting 1937–2010. The Journal of Politics, 75(2), 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrington, N. T., & French, C. (2021). One bad apple spoils the bunch: Kavanaugh and change in institutional support for the supreme court. Social Science Quarterly, 102(4), 1484–1495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, T. S., & Lauderdale, B. (2010). Locating supreme court opinions in doctrine space. American Journal of Political Science, 54(4), 871–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, P. (2004). Friends of the court: Examining the influence of amicus curiae participation in U.S. supreme court litigation. Law & Society Review, 38(4), 807–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, P., Corley, P. C., & Hamner, J. (2015). The influence of amicus curiae briefs on us supreme court opinion content. Law & Society Review, 49(4), 917–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins Jr, P. M., Ringhand, L., & Boyd, C. (2023). Supreme bias: Gender and race in us supreme court confirmation hearings. Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooter, R., Marks, S., & Mnookin, R. (1982). Bargaining in the shadow of the law: A testable model of strategic behavior. The Journal of Legal Studies, 11(2), 225–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortner, R. C. (1968). Strategies and tactics of litigants in constitutional cases. Journal of Public Law, 17, 287–307.Google Scholar
Dolovich, S. (2020). Mass incarceration, meet covid-19. University of Chicago Law Review Online, 4.Google Scholar
Drolc, C., Merrill, A. H., & Schoenherr, J. A. (2023). Understanding regime change at the U.S. supreme court. (Working Paper)Google Scholar
Epp, C. R. (1998). The rights revolution: Lawyers, activists, and supreme courts in comparative perspective. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, L., & Jacobi, T. (2010). The strategic analysis of judicial decisions. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6, 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, L., Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (2017). When it comes to business, the right and left sides of the court agree. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 54, 33–56.Google Scholar
Farhang, S. (2010). The litigation state. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores, A. R., Mallory, C., & Conron, K. J. (2020). Public attitudes about emergent issues in lgbtq rights: Conversion therapy and religious refusals. Research & Politics, 7(4), 2053168020966874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredrickson, C., & Neff, A. (2022, April). Diversity in federal judicial selection during the biden administration (Tech. Rep.). Brennan Center for Justice. www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/diversity-federal-judicial-selection-during-biden-administrationGoogle Scholar
Galanter, M. (1974). Why the haves come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law & Society Review, 9, 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gay, C. (2002). Spirals of trust? The effect of descriptive representation on the relationship between citizens and their government. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 717–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. L., & Nelson, M. J. (2021). Judging inequality: State supreme courts and the inequality crisis. Russell Sage Foundation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, C. (2021). Deconstructing the administrative state: Chevron debates and the transformation of constitutional politics. Boston University Law Review, 101, 619–704.Google Scholar
Grossmann, M. (2012). The not-so-special interests: Interest groups, public representation, and American governance. Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunderson, A. (2021). Ideology, disadvantage, and federal district court inmate civil rights filings: The troubling effects of pro se status. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 18(3), 603–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunderson, A. (2022). Captive market: The politics of private prisons in america. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunderson, A., Widner, K., & Macdonald, M. (2023). Pursuing change or pursuing credit? Litigation and credit claiming on social media. Journal of Law and Courts, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/jlc.2022.16Google Scholar
Hansford, T. G. (2004a). Information provision, organizational constraints, and the decision to submit an amicus curiae brief in a U.S. supreme court case. Political Research Quarterly, 57(2), 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansford, T. G. (2004b). Lobbying strategies, venue selection, and organized interest involvement at the US supreme court. American Politics Research, 32(2), 170–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazelton, M. L., & Hinkle, R. K. (2022). Persuading the supreme court: The significance of briefs in judicial decision-making. University Press of Kansas.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazelton, M. L., Hinkle, R. K., & Spriggs, J. F. (2019). The influence of unique information in briefs on supreme court opinion content. Justice System Journal, 40(2), 126–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitt, M. P. (2013). Presidential success in supreme court appointments: Informational effects and institutional constraints. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 43(4), 792–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollis-Brusky, A. (2015). Ideas with consequences: The federalist society and the conservative counterrevolution. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holyoke, T. T., Brown, H., & Henig, J. R. (2012). Shopping in the political arena: Strategic state and local venue selection by advocates. State and Local Government Review, 44(1), 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hübert, R., & Copus, R. (2022). Political appointments and outcomes in federal district courts. The Journal of Politics, 84(2), 908–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, S., Malhotra, N., & Sen, M. (2022). A decade-long longitudinal survey shows that the supreme court is now much more conservative than the public. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(24), e2120284119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, T. R. (2003). The supreme court, the solicitor general, and the separation of powers. American Politics Research, 31(4), 426–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaslovsky, J., Rogowski, J. C., & Stone, A. R. (2021). Descriptive representation and public support for supreme court nominees. Political Science Research and Methods, 9(3), 583–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, A. R., & Klevs, A. (2022). Adaptive fuzzy string matching: How to merge datasets with only one (messy) identifying field. Political Analysis, 30(4), 590–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. H., Gunderson, A., Lane, E. A., & Bauer, N. M. (2023). State courts, state legislatures, and setting abortion policy. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 48(4), 569–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kobylka, J. F. (1987). A court-created context for group litigation: Libertarian groups and obscenity. The Journal of Politics, 49(4), 1061–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kousser, T., & Phillips, J. H. (2012). The power of american governors: Winning on budgets and losing on policy. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreitzer, R. J., & Smith, C. W. (2018). Reproducible and replicable: An empirical assessment of the social construction of politically relevant target groups. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(4), 768–774.Google Scholar
Krewson, C. N., & Owens, R. J. (2021). Public support for judicial philosophies: Evidence from a conjoint experiment. Journal of Law and Courts, 9(1), 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, C. (2003). Pay up or shut up: The supreme court’s prospective denial of in forma pauperis petitions. Northwestern University Law Review, 98, 335–366.Google Scholar
Lane, E. (2022). A separation-of-powers approach to the supreme court’s shrinking caseload. Journal of Law and Courts, 10(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, E., & Black, R. C. (2017). Agenda setting and case selection on the us supreme court. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics, https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, A. O., & Devins, N. (2016). The amicus machine. Virginia Law Review, 102, 1901.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1958). Politics: Who gets what, when, how with postscript (1958). Meridian books.Google Scholar
Liebell, S. (2023). The politics of law: Capricious originalism and the future of the supreme court. Polity, 55(2), 356–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, R., & Fronk, M. (2021). Assessing the influence of amici on supreme court decision making. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 18(4), 700–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinek, W. L., Kemper, M., & Van Winkle, S. R. (2002). To advise and consent: The senate and lower federal court nominations, 1977–1998. Journal of Politics, 64(2), 337–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massie, T. D., Hansford, T. G., & Songer, D. R. (2004). The timing of presidential nominations to the lower federal courts. Political Research Quarterly, 57(1), 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCammon, H. J., Sudibjo, M. N., Beeson-Lynch, C., Brockman, A. J., & Moon, M. (2022). Feminist friends of the court: Amicus curiae, social movement institutional activism, and the US supreme court’s women’s rights cases. Sociological Focus, 55(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, M. (2006). Law and social movements: Contemporary perspectives. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2, 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, K. T. (1995). Repeat players in the supreme court: The role of experienced lawyers in litigation success. The Journal of Politics, 57(1), 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, K. T., Vanberg, G., Smith Jr, C. E., & Caldeira, G. A. (2009). Measuring policy content on the us supreme court. The Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1305–1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nownes, A. J., & Freeman, P. (1998). Interest group activity in the states. The Journal of Politics, 60(1), 86–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, S. M. (1990). Interest-group litigation in federal district court: Beyond the political disadvantage theory. The Journal of Politics, 52(3), 854–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, R. J., & Epstein, L. (2005). Amici curiae during the Rehnquist years. Judicature, 89, 127–133.Google Scholar
Pacelle, R. L. (2003). Between law and politics: The solicitor general and the structuring of race, gender, and reproductive rights litigation (No. 14). Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Perry, H. W. (1991). Deciding to decide: Agenda setting in the United States supreme court. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Priest, G. L., & Klein, B. (1984). The selection of disputes for litigation. The Journal of Legal Studies, 13(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reingold, B., Haynie, K. L., & Widner, K. (2020). Race, gender, and political representation: Toward a more intersectional approach. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogol, N. C., & Montgomery, M. D. (2021). Seeking information: When the court wants more. Journal of Law and Courts, 9(1), 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogowski, J. C., & Stone, A. R. (2021). How political contestation over judicial nominations polarizes americans’ attitudes toward the supreme court. British Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 1251–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, G. N. (2008). The hollow hope: Can courts bring about social change? University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salzman, R., Williams, C. J., & Calvin, B. T. (2011). The determinants of the number of amicus briefs filed before the US supreme court, 1953–2001. Justice System Journal, 32(3), 293–313.Google Scholar
Schlozman, K. L., & Tierney, J. T. (1986). Organized interests and American democracy. Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Schoenherr, J. A., & Black, R. C. (2019). Friends with benefits: Case significance, amicus curiae, and agenda setting on the US supreme court. International Review of Law and Economics, 58, 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (2002). The supreme court and the attitudinal model revisited. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, R. S., Mishler, W., & Songer, D. R. (1992). Ideology, status, and the differential success of direct parties before the supreme court. American Political Science Review, 86(2), 464–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, D. R., & Sheehan, R. S. (1992). Who wins on appeal? Upperdogs and underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals. American Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 235–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, D. R., & Sheehan, R. S. (1993). Interest group success in the courts: Amicus participation in the supreme court. Political Research Quarterly, 46(2), 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, D. R., Sheehan, R. S., & Haire, S. B. (1999). Do the haves come out ahead over time? Applying Galanter’s framework to decisions of the US Courts of Appeals, 1925–1988. Law & Society Review, 33, 811–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southworth, A. (2019). Lawyers of the right: Professionalizing the conservative coalition. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Spaeth, H., Epstein, L., Martin, A. D., et al. (2022). Supreme court database. http://scdb.wustl.edu.Google Scholar
Spaeth, H., Epstein, L., Martin, A. D., et al. (2021). Supreme court database code book. http://Supremecourtdatabase.org.Google Scholar
Spriggs, J. F., & Wahlbeck, P. J. (1997). Amicus curiae and the role of information at the supreme court. Political Research Quarterly, 50(2), 365–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staszak, S. (2014). No day in court: Access to justice and the politics of judicial retrenchment. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Teles, S. M. (2012). Rise of the conservative legal movement: The battle for control of the law. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Loo, M. P. (2014). The stringdist package for approximate string matching. R Journal, 6(1), 111–122.Google Scholar
Vose, C. E. (1959). Caucasians only: The supreme court, the NAACP, and the restrictive covenant cases. University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, J. L. (1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America: Patrons, professions, and social movements. University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedeking, J. (2010). Supreme court litigants and strategic framing. American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 617–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehouse, S. (2015). Conservative judicial activism: The politicization of the supreme court under chief justice roberts. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 9, 195–210.Google Scholar
Widner, K. (2020). Unrepresentative representatives: Surrogate advocacy and policymaking for the unenfranchised (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Emory University.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. C., & Hollis-Brusky, A. (2023). How the Christian Right slayed a monster and reframed the religion clauses in Bremerton. Polity, 55(2), 371–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wohlfarth, P. C. (2009). The tenth justice? Consequences of politicization in the solicitor general’s office. The Journal of Politics, 71(1), 224–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, M. (2023). Dobbs and the jurisprudence of exclusion. Polity, 55(2), 419–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Haves and Have-Nots in Supreme Court Representation and Participation, 2016 to 2021
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Haves and Have-Nots in Supreme Court Representation and Participation, 2016 to 2021
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Haves and Have-Nots in Supreme Court Representation and Participation, 2016 to 2021
Available formats
×