IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v107y2013i03p446-460_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quality Over Quantity: Amici Influence and Judicial Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • BOX-STEFFENSMEIER, JANET M.
  • CHRISTENSON, DINO P.
  • HITT, MATTHEW P.

Abstract

Interest groups often make their preferences known on cases before the U.S. Supreme Court via amicus curiae briefs. In evaluating the case and related arguments, we posit that judges take into account more than just the number of supporters for the liberal and conservative positions. Specifically, judges’ decisions may also reflect the relative power of the groups. We use network position to measure interest group power in U.S. Supreme Court cases from 1946 to 2001. We find that the effect of interest group power is minimal in times of heavily advantaged cases. However, when the two sides of a case are approximately equal in the number of briefs, such power is a valuable signal to judges. We also show that justice ideology moderates the effect of liberal interest group power. The results corroborate previous findings on the influence of amicus curiae briefs and add a nuanced understanding of the conditions under which the quality and reputation of interest groups matter, not just the quantity.

Suggested Citation

  • Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M. & Christenson, Dino P. & Hitt, Matthew P., 2013. "Quality Over Quantity: Amici Influence and Judicial Decision Making," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(3), pages 446-460, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:107:y:2013:i:03:p:446-460_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S000305541300021X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kim Yeaji & Antenangeli Leonardo & Kirkland Justin, 2016. "Measurement Error and Attenuation Bias in Exponential Random Graph Models," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1-2), pages 29-54, December.
    2. Mintao Nie, 2023. "IOs’ selective adoption of NGO information: Evidence from the Universal Periodic Review," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 27-59, January.
    3. James Rockey & Nadia Zakir, 2021. "Power and the money, money and the power: A network analysis of donations from American corporate to political leaders," Discussion Papers 21-03, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:107:y:2013:i:03:p:446-460_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.