Explaining Supreme Court policymaking in civil rights: The influence of the solicitor general, 1953-2002

Policy Studies Journal

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 253-271

  Graham, Barbara L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI ST LOUIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CIVIL RIGHTS; INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK; POLICY MAKING;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 0142230036     PISSN: 0190292X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1541-0072.00014     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Baum, L. (1992). Membership change and collective voting change in the United States Supreme Court. Journal of Politics, 54, 3-24.
2. Blasi, V. (Ed.) (1983). The Burger court: The counter-revolution that wasn't. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
3. Caldeira, G. A., & Wright, J. R. (1988). Organized interests and agenda setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 82, 1109-1128.
4. Caplan, L. (1987). The tenth justice: The solicitor general and the rule of law. New York: Vintage Books.
5. Clayton, C. W. (1992). The politics of justice: The attorney general and the making of legal policy. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
6. Clayton, C. W., & Gillman, H. (Eds.). (1999). Supreme Court decision-making: New institutionalist approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Cohen, J. E. (1993). The dynamics and interactions between the president's and the public's civil rights agendas: A study in presidential leadership and representation. Policy Studies Journal, 21, 514-521.
8. Days, D. S. (1994). In search of the solicitor general's clients: A drama with many characters. Kentucky Law Journal, 83, 485-503.
9. Epstein, L., Segal, J. A., Spaeth, H. I., & Walker, T. G. (1996). The Supreme Court compendium: Data,' decisions and developments (2d ed.). Washington. DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc.
10. Friedelbaum, S. (1994). The Rehnquist Court: In pursuit of judicial conservatism. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
11. George, T., & Epstein L. (1992). On the nature of Supreme Court decision making. American Political Science Review, 86, 323-337.
12. Hensley, T. R., & Smith, C. (1995). Membership change and voting change: An analysis of the Rehnquist Court's 1986-1991 terms. Political Research Quarterly, 48, 837-856.
13. Kearney, J. D., & Merill, T. W. (2000). The influence of amicus curiae briefs on the Supreme Court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 148, 743-855.
14. Krislov, S. (1963). The amicus curiae brief: From friendship to advocacy. Yale Law Journal, 72, 694-721.
15. Kurland, P. B., & Casper, T. W. (Eds.). (Various years). Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States; Constitutional law. Washington, DC: University Publications of America.
16. McGuire, K. T. (1998). Explaining executive success in the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 505-526.
17. McMahon, K. J. (2000). Constitutional vision and Supreme Court decisions: Reconsidering Roosevelt on race. American Political Development, 14, 20-50.
18. Meinhold, S., & Shull, T. W. (1998). Policy congruence between the president and the solicitor general. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 527-537.
19. Navasky, V. S. (1971). Kennedy justice. New York: Atheneum.
20. O'Brien, D. M. (2000). Storm center: The Supreme Court in American politics (5th ed). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
21. O'Connor, K. (1983).The amicus curiae role of the U.S. solicitor general in Supreme Court litigation. Judicature, 66, 256-264.
22. Puro, S. (1981).The United States as amicus curiae. In S. S. Ulmer (Ed.), Courts, law, and judicial processes. New York: The Free Press.
23. Richards, M. J., & Kritzer, H. M. (2002). Jurisprudential regimes in Supreme Court decision making. American Political Science Review, 96, 305-320.
24. Richardson, Jr., L. E., & Scheb, II, H. M. (1993). Divided government and the Supreme Court: Judicial behavior in civil rights and civil liberties cases, 1954-89. American Politics Quarterly, 21, 458-472.
25. Romero, F. S. (2000). The Supreme Court and the protection of minority rights: An empirical examination of racial discrimination cases. Law & Society Review, 34, 291-313.
26. Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, Effective May 3, 1999, Retrieved from the Supreme Court Web site, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
27. Salokar, R. M. (1992). The solicitor general: The politics of law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
28. Schwartz, H. (Ed), (1987). The Burger years: Rights and wrongs in the Supreme Court, 1969-1986. New York: Viking-Penguin, Inc.
29. Scigliano, R. L. (1971). The Supreme Court and the presidency. New York: The Free Press.
30. Segal, J. A. (1988). Amicus curiae briefs by the solicitor general during the Warren and Burger Courts: A research note. Western Political Quarterly, 41, 135-144.
31. Segal, J. A., & Reedy, C. D. (1988). The Supreme Court and sex discrimination: The role of the solicitor general. Western Political Quarterly, 41, 553-568
32. Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (1993). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
33. Segal, J. A., Timpone, R. J., & Howard, R. M. (2000). Buyer beware? Presidential success through Supreme Court appointments. Political Research Quarterly, 53, 557-595.
34. 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, 464-471.
35. Songer, D. R. (1979). Concern for policy outputs as a cue for Supreme Court decisions on certiorari. Journal of Politics, 42, 1185-1194.
36. Songer, D. R., & Sheehan, R. S. (1993). Interest group success in the courts: Amicus participation in the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 339-354.
37. Spaeth, H. J. (2001). United States Supreme Court Judicial Database, 1953-2000 Terms. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Program for Law and Judicial Politics, Department of Political Science.
38. Spriggs, II, J. F., & Wahlbeck, P. J. (1997). Amicus curiae and the role of information at the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 365-386.
39. Tauber, S. C. (1999). The NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the U.S. Supreme Court's racial discrimination decision making. Social Science Quarterly, 80, 325-340.
40. United States Supreme Court Briefs and Records. (Various years). Englewood, Colorado: Information Handling Services.
41. Wasby, S. L. (1993). A transformed triangle: Court, Congress, and presidency in civil rights. Policy Studies Journal, 21, 565-574.
42. Waxman, S. P. (2001). Shifting the balance of power? The Supreme Court, federalism, and state sovereign immunity: Does the solicitor general matter? Stanford Law Review, 43, 1115-1126.