Advertisement

Signals from a politicized bar: the solicitor general as a direct litigant before the U.S. Supreme Court

  • Scott S. BodderyEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

In its dealings with the U.S. Supreme Court, the solicitor general’s office enjoys remarkable success. Previous accounts of the solicitor general advantage roundly explain the phenomenon as a function of the office being a source of reliable legal information to Supreme Court justices. I demonstrate, however, that macro-level analysis—the office’s overall winning percentage—misses an intricate dynamic between policy-minded justices and the executive agency. Examining every case between 1961 and 2007 in which the solicitor general’s office represented the United States before the Supreme Court, I demonstrate that “the solicitor general advantage” is present but contingent on justice-level ideological congruence. Justices who are ideologically opposed to the incumbent president treat the solicitor general’s office as an ordinary litigant, affording it no deferential treatment. Notably, adversarial voting—that is, voting behavior when faced with a political opponent—is heightened when the solicitor general’s office appears before the Court as petitioner, whereas ideological influences are nonexistent when the office appears as respondent.

Keywords

U.S. Presidency Solicitor general U.S. Supreme Court Judicial behavior Judicial politics Judicial decision making 

JEL Classification

K00 K10 K490 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Jeff Yates, Wendy Martinek, and Michael McDonald for their feedback during this project’s infancy. Thanks also to Justin Wedeking for his remarks on an earlier draft and to the reviewers and editors of Constitutional Political Economy for their constructive comments and suggestions.

References

  1. 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
  2. Black, R. C., & Owens, R. J. (2011). Solicitor general influence and agenda setting on the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 64(4), 765–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broder, J. M. (June 29, 2012). Vindication for maligned lawyer in justices’ decision. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  4. Caldeira, G. A., & Wright, J. R. (1988). Organized interests and agenda setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 82(4), 1109–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caplan, L. (1987). The tenth justice: The solicitor general and the rule of law. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  6. Carroll, R., Lewis, J. B., Lo, J., Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (2009). Measuring bias and uncertainty in DW-NOMINATE ideal point estimates via the parametric bootstrap. Political Analysis, 17(3), 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).Google Scholar
  8. Clark, T. S. (2010). The limits of judicial independence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, M. A. (1991). Explaining judicial behavior or what’s ‘unconstitutional’ about the sentencing commission. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 7(1), 183–199.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, M. A. (1992). The motives of judges: Empirical evidence from antitrust sentencing. International Review of Law and Economics, 12(1), 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins, J., & Paul, M. (2007). Lobbyists before the U.S. Supreme Court: Investigating the influence of amicus curiae briefs. Political Research Quarterly, 60(1), 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooper, J. L. (1990). The solicitor general and the evolution of activism. Indiana Law Journal, 65(3), 675–696.Google Scholar
  13. Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (1998). The choices justices make. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  14. Epstein, L., Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (2013). The behavior of federal judges: A theoretical and empirical study of rational choice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Epstein, L., Martin, A. D., Segal, J. A., & Westerland, C. (2007). The judicial common space. The Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, 23(2), 303–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fleck, R. K., & Hanssen, F. A. (2013). Judges: Why do they matter? In M. Reksulak, L. Razzolini, & W. F. Shughart II (Eds.), The Elgar companion to public choice (pp. 233–248). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galanter, M. (1974). Why the ‘haves’ come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law & Society Review, 9(1), 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kagan, E. (May 10, 2010). Elena Kagan’s questionnaire for her nomination as solicitor general. The Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  19. Maltzman, F., Spriggs, J. F., II, & Wahlbeck, P. J. (2000). Crafting law on the Supreme Court: The collegial game. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Martin, A. D., & Quinn, K. M. (2002). Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Politial Analysis, 10(2), 143–153.Google Scholar
  21. McGuire, K. T. (1995). Repeat players in the Supreme Court: The role of experienced lawyers in litigation success. Journal of Politics, 57(1), 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McGuire, K. T. (1998). Explaining executive success in the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 51(2), 505–526.Google Scholar
  23. Murphy, W. F. (1973). Elements of judicial strategy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).Google Scholar
  25. O’Connor, K. (1983). The Amicus Curiae role of the U.S. solicitor general in Supreme Court litigation. Judicature, 66, 256–264.Google Scholar
  26. Pacelle, R. L., Jr. (2003). Between law and politics: The solicitor general and the structuring of race, gender, and reproductive rights litigation. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Perry, H. W., Jr. (1991). Deciding to decide: Agenda setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Pillard, C. T. (2005). The unfulfilled promise of the constitutions in executive hands. Michigan Law Review, 103(4), 676–758.Google Scholar
  29. Pritchett, C. Herman. (1941). Divisions of opinion among justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1939–1941. American Political Science Review, 35(5), 890–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
  31. Rohde, D. W., & Spaeth, H. J. (1976). Supreme court decision making. San Fransisco, CA: Freeman Press.Google Scholar
  32. Salokar, R. M. (1992). The solicitor general: The politics of law. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Schubert, G. A. (1965). The judicial mind: The attitudes and ideologies of Supreme Court justices, 1946–1963. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Scigliano, J. A. (1971). The Supreme Court and the Presidency. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  35. Segal, J. A. (1988). Amicus Curiae briefs by the solicitor general during the warren and burger courts: A research note. Western Political Quarterly, 41(1), 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (1993). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (1996). The influence of stare decisis on the votes of United States Supreme Court Justices. American Journal of Political Science, 40(4), 971–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sheehan, R. S. (1992). Federal agencies and the Supreme Court: An analysis of litigation outcomes, 1953–1988. American Politics Research, 20(4), 478–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spriggs, J. F., & Wahlbeck, P. J. (1997). Amicus Curiae and the role of information at the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 50(2), 356–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Toma, E. F. (1991). Congressional influence and the Supreme Court: The budget as a signaling device. Journal of Legal Studies, 20(1), 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Toma, E. F. (1996). A contractual model of the voting behavior of the Supreme Court: The role of the Chief Justice. International Review of Law and Economics, 16(4), 433–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ubertaccio, P. N., III. (2005). Learned in the law and politics: The Office of the solicitor general and executive power. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.Google Scholar
  44. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013).Google Scholar
  45. Wasby, S. L. (1982). Functions and importance of appellate oral argument: Some views of lawyers and federal judges. Judicature, 65(7), 340–353.Google Scholar
  46. Wohlfarth, P. C. (2009). The tenth justice? Consequences of politicization in the Solicitor General’s Office. Journal of Politics, 71(1), 224–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zorn, C. J. W. (2002). U.S. government litigation strategies in the federal appellate courts. Political Research Quarterly, 55(1), 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceGettysburg CollegeGettysburgUSA

Personalised recommendations