The institutional sources of state success in federalism litigation before the supreme court

Law and Policy

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 455-472

  Chen, Paul ^a  

^a WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248063544     PISSN: 02658240     EISSN: 14679930     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0265-8240.2003.00159.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright (1990) “Amicus Curiae Before the Supreme Court: Who Participates, When, and How Much?” Law & Society Review 52: 782-806.
2. Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright (1988) “Organized Interests and Agenda-Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court,” American Political Science Review 82: 1109-28.
3. Cammisa, Anne Marie (1995) Governments as Interest Groups: Intergovernmental Lobbying and the Federal System. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
4. Choper, Jesse H. (1980) Judicial Review and the National Political Process: A Functional Reconsideration of the Role of the Supreme Court. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
5. Cigler, Beverly A. (1995) “Not Just Another Special Interest: Intergovernmental Representation.” In Interest Group Politics, edited by A. J. Cigler & B. A. Loomis. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
6. Clayton, Cornell W. (1994) “Law, Politics, and the New Federalism: State Attorneys General as National Policymakers,” Review of Politics 56: 525-53.
7. Clayton, Cornell W., and Howard Gillman (eds.) (1999) Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutional Approaches. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
8. Clayton, Cornell W., and Jack Mcguire (1999) “State Attorneys General and State Litigating Strategies in the U.S. Supreme Court.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 2-5 September, Atlanta.
9. Conlan, Timothy J. (1991) “And the Beat Goes On: Intergovernmental Mandates and Preemption in an Era of Deregulation,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 21(3):43-57.
10. Conlan, Timothy J., and François Vergniolle De Chantal (2000) “Courting Devolution: The Rehnquist Court and Contemporary American Federalism.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 31 August-3 September, Washington, D.C.
11. Dinan, John (1997) “State Government Influences in the National Policy Process: Lessons from the 104th Congress,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 27(2):129-42.
12. Epp, Charles R. (1998) The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
13. Epstein, Lee, and Joseph F. Kobylka (1993) The Supreme Court and Legal Change: Abortion and the Death Penalty. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press.
14. Epstein, Lee, and Karen O’connor (1988) “States and the United States Supreme Court: An Examination of Litigation Outcomes,” Social Science Quarterly 69: 660-74.
15. Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight (1999) “Mapping Out the Strategic Terrain: The Informational Role of Amicus Curiae.” In Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches, edited by C. Clayton & H. Gillman. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
16. Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Timothy Johnson (1996) “The Claim of Issue Creation on the United States Supreme Court,” American Political Science Review 90: 845-52.
17. Fix, Michael, and Daphne A. Kenyon (eds.) (1990) Coping with Mandates: What Are the Alternatives? Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
18. Galanter, Marc (1974) “Why the Haves Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” Law & Society Review 9: 95-160.
19. Gillman, Howard, and Cornell Clayton W. (eds.) (1999) The Supreme Court in American Politics. Lawrence: Univ. of Kansas Press.
20. Haider, Donald H. (1974) When Governments Come to Washington: Governors, Mayors, and Intergovernmental Lobbying. New York: Free Press.
21. Hickok, Eugene W., Jr. (1990) “Federalism’s Future before the Supreme Court.” In American Federalism: The Third Century, edited by J. Kincaid. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
22. Kaden, Lewis B. (1979) “Politics, Money, and State Sovereignty: The Judicial Role,” Columbia Law Review 79: 847-97.
23. Kearney, Joseph D., and Thomas W. Merrill (2000) “The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148: 743-855.
24. Kearney, Richard, and Reginald Sheehan (1992) “Supreme Court Decision Making: The Impact of Court Composition on State and Local Government Litigation,” Journal of Politics 54: 1008-25.
25. Kettl, Donald F. (1987) Regulation of American Federalism. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
26. Kettl, Donald F. (1992) Deficit Politics: Public Budgeting in Its Institutional and Historical Context. New York: Macmillan.
27. Koch, Edward (1980) “The Mandate Millstone,” Public Interest 61(fall):42-57.
28. Lawrence, Susan E. (1990) The Poor in Court: The Legal Services Program and Supreme Court Decision Making. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press.
29. Mcguire, Kevin T. (1994) “Amicus Curiae and Strategies for Gaining Access to the Supreme Court,” Political Research Quarterly 47: 821-37.
30. Mcguire, Kevin T., and Barbara Palmer (1995) “Issue Fluidity on the United States Supreme Court,” American Political Science Review 89: 691-702.
31. Mendelson, Wallace (1963) “The Neo-Behavioral Approach to the Judicial Process: A Critique,” American Political Science Review 57: 593-603.
32. Morris, Thomas (1987) “The States before the Federal Courts,” Judicature 70: 298-305.
33. O’connor, Karen, and Lee Epstein (198182) “Amicus Curiae Participation In United States Supreme Court Litigation: An Appraisal of Hakman’s ‘Folklore’”, Law & Society Review 16: 311-20.
34. Perry, H. W. (1991) Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
35. Posner, Paul L. (1997) “Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: 1996 and Beyond,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 27(2):53-71.
36. Posner, Paul L. (1998) The Politics of Unfunded Mandates: Whither Federalism? Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Univ. Press.
37. Rohde, David W., and Harold J. Spaeth (1976) Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco, Calif.: W. H. Freeman.
38. Ross, Douglas, and Michael W. Catalano. (1988) “How State and Local Governments Fared in the United States Supreme Court for the Past Five Terms,” Urban Lawyer 20: 341-52.
39. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Albert Cover (1989) “Ideological Values and the Votes of the United States Supreme Court Justices,” American Political Science Review 83: 557-65.
40. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth (1993) The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
41. Sheehan, Reginald A., William Mishler, and Donald R. Songer (1992) “Ideology, Status and the Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court,” American Political Science Review 86: 464-74.
42. Smith, Christopher E., and Thomas R. Hensley (1994) “Unfulfilled Aspirations: The Court-Packing Efforts of Presidents Reagan and Bush,” Albany Law Review 57: 1111-31.
43. Songer, Donald, and Reginald Sheehan (1993) “Interest Group Success in the Courts: Amicus Participation in the Supreme Court,” Political Research Quarterly 46: 339-54.
44. Wallin, Bruce A. (1998) From Revenue Sharing to Deficit Sharing: General Revenue Sharing and Cities. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Univ. Press.
45. Waltenburg, Eric N., and Bill Swinford (1999a) Litigating Federalism: The States Before the U.S. Supreme Court. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
46. Waltenburg, Eric N., and Bill Swinford (1999b) “The Supreme Court as a Policy Arena,” Policy Studies Journal 27: 242-59.
47. Wasby, Stephen L. (1984) The Supreme Court in the Federal Judicial System. 2d ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
48. Wasby, Stephen L. (1993) “A Transformed Triangle: Court, Congress, and the Presidency in Civil Rights,” Policy Studies Journal 21: 565-74.
49. Webster, William L. (1990) “The Emerging of State Attorneys General and the New Federalism (The 1990 Foulston and Siefkin Lecture),” Washburn Law Journal 30: 1-14.
50. Wechsler, Herbert (1954) “The Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Role of the States in the Selection and Composition of the Federal Government,” Columbia Law Review 54: 543-60.
51. Wilson, Woodrow (1908) Constitutional Government in the United States. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
52. Zimmerman, Joseph F. (1998) “Interstate Cooperation: The Roles of the States Attorney General,” Publius 28(1):71-89.