Suchergebnisse

Students of law and courts know a great deal about amici curiae vis-à-vis the U.S. Supreme Court. Conversely, scholars know little to nothing about amici curiae in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. This article begins to address this deficiency in our state of knowledge by examining the incidence of amici at the courts of appeals level. Drawing in part on the existing literature regarding amici in the Supreme Court, I develop a model of amicus curiae participation in the courts of appeals that arises directly from a consideration of the goals of potential amicus curiae filers. To wit, amici are interested in obtaining favorable rulings in the courts, and, hence, there will be more participation by amici in a case the more desirable that case is as a policy vehicle. An analysis relying on the data available in the U.S. Courts of Appeals Database supports this argument.

Objective. Though there is an extensive literature focused on the participation and efficacy of interest group amici curiae in the U.S. Supreme Court, there is little rigorous analysis of amici curiae in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Here, we systematically analyze the influence of amicus curiae briefs on U.S. Court of Appeals decision making to provide insights regarding both judicial decision making and the efficacy of interest groups. Methods. We use a probit model to capture influences on appellant success in the courts of appeals from 1997--2002. Results. We find that amicus briefs filed in support of the appellant enhance the likelihood of that litigant's probability of success, but that amicus briefs filed in support of the appellee have no effect on litigation outcomes. Conclusion. Amici can help level the playing field between appellants and appellees by serving to counter the propensity to affirm in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Adapted from the source document.

The intersection of gender -- and to a lesser extent, race -- and political ambition has been the subject of considerable research. To date, however, analyses of the intersection of political ambition, race, and gender in the context of the judiciary have been limited. The authors seek to remedy this deficiency with the use of data from a recent survey of justices of the New York State Supreme Court, the major trial court in the State of New York. They find that female and nonwhite justices have a greater desire to move up in a judicial career than do their white male counterparts. Adapted from the source document.

The intersection of gender—and to a lesser extent, race—and political ambition has been the subject of considerable research. To date, however, analyses of the intersection of political ambition, race, and gender in the context of the judiciary have been limited. The authors seek to remedy this deficiency with the use of data from a recent survey of justices of the New York State Supreme Court, the major trial court in the State of New York. They find that female and nonwhite justices have a greater desire to move up in a judicial career than do their white male counterparts.

We contribute to the literature on political psychology, interest groups, and judicial decision making by examining whether ideology mediates the effect of amicus curiae briefs on decision making in the U.S. courts of appeals. Using an original data set, we find evidence that moderate and conservative judges are influenced by amicus briefs, but that liberal judges do not respond to these persuasion attempts. We conclude that this form of interest group lobbying influences judicial decision making by at least some judges and that understanding the efficacy of this interest group strategy requires an appreciation of how political actors process persuasive information.