IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v49y2005i1p72-85.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Signals from the Tenth Justice: The Political Role of the Solicitor General in Supreme Court Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Michael A. Bailey
  • Brian Kamoie
  • Forrest Maltzman

Abstract

Conventional explanations of the solicitor general's influence on the Supreme Court emphasize his expertise or experience. We articulate and test a more political account based on insights from signaling theory. We argue justices will be more receptive to signals from the solicitor general (S.G.) when either the justice and S.G. are ideologically proximate or the S.G.'s signal is contrary to his ideological predisposition. We test our account over the period from 1953 to 2002 using a newly developed interinstitutional measure of ideology that places executive and judicial actors on the same spatial scale. Our results highlight the political nature of the S.G.'s influence, challenging the received wisdom about the S.G.'s impact on the Supreme Court.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael A. Bailey & Brian Kamoie & Forrest Maltzman, 2005. "Signals from the Tenth Justice: The Political Role of the Solicitor General in Supreme Court Decision Making," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(1), pages 72-85, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:49:y:2005:i:1:p:72-85
    DOI: 10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00111.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00111.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00111.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Paul Hofmarcher & Sourav Adhikari & Bettina Grun, 2022. "Gaining Insights on U.S. Senate Speeches Using a Time Varying Text Based Ideal Point Model," Papers 2206.10877, arXiv.org.
    2. Ryan J. Owens, 2010. "The Separation of Powers and Supreme Court Agenda Setting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 412-427, April.
    3. Scott Simon Boddery & Damon Cann & Laura Moyer & Jeff Yates, 2023. "The role of cable news hosts in public support for Supreme Court decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 1045-1069, December.
    4. Shor, Boris & McCarty, Nolan, 2010. "The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures," Papers 8-11-2010, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    5. Scott S. Boddery, 2019. "Signals from a politicized bar: the solicitor general as a direct litigant before the U.S. Supreme Court," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 194-210, June.
    6. Justin Wedeking, 2010. "Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 617-631, July.
    7. Meckling, Jonas & Nahm, Jonas, 2019. "The politics of technology bans: Industrial policy competition and green goals for the auto industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 470-479.
    8. Lee Epstein & Eric A. Posner, 2016. "Supreme Court Justices' Loyalty to the President," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 401-436.
    9. Ronald Mann & Michael Fronk, 2021. "Assessing the Influence of Amici on Supreme Court Decision Making," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 700-741, December.
    10. Yonatan Lupu & James H. Fowler, 2013. "Strategic Citations to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 151-186.
    11. Kevin A. Clarke, 2009. "Return of the Phantom Menace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(1), pages 46-66, February.

    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:wly:amposc:v:49:y:2005:i:1:p:72-85. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.