Counteractive Lobbying in the U.S. Supreme Court

  title={Counteractive Lobbying in the U.S. Supreme Court},
  author={Lisa A. Solowiej and Paul M. Collins},
  journal={American Politics Research},
  pages={670 - 699}
Theories of counteractive lobbying assert that interest groups lobby for the purpose of neutralizing the advocacy efforts of their opponents. We examine the applicability of counteractive lobbying to explain interest group amicus curiae participation in the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions on the merits. Testing the counteractive lobbying hypotheses from 1953 to 2001, we provide strong support for the contention that interest groups engage in counteractive lobbying in the nation's highest court… 

Tables from this paper

Friends and Interveners: Interest Group Litigation in a Comparative Context
Interest groups attempt to shape the content of law and policy in a variety of venues, including the legal system. Though the bulk of research dedicated to understanding interest group participation
The Dynamics of Interest Representation at the U.S. Supreme Court
How do organized interests respond to their opponents’ advocacy activities in a policy venue? Utilizing data on amicus curiae filings at the U.S. Supreme Court, the author estimates vector error
Amicus Curiae Briefs and the U.S. Supreme Court: When Liberal and Conservative Groups Support the Same Party
Abstract I examine patterns of amicus curiae participation before the U.S. Supreme Court for six terms, OT2007–OT2012. I explore the interesting phenomenon of liberal and conservative group
Is Certiorari Contingent on Litigant Behavior? Petitioners' Role in Strategic Auditing
Complementing the burgeoning literature on agenda setting on the Supreme Court of the United States, this article addresses a key question heretofore overlooked—Is the justices' choice to review a
Why File? Organized Interests and Amicus Briefs in State Courts of Last Resort
ABSTRACT Why do organized interests lobby state supreme courts? Much of the extant research on interest group activity in the judiciary focuses on the U.S. federal courts, with comparatively little
Why Be Friends? Amicus Curiae Briefs in State Courts of Last Resort
While there has been a substantial body of research on interest group activity in U.S. federal courts, there has been comparatively little analysis of interest group engagement with state courts.
Public Attention and Certiorari: The Impact of Public Attention on Supreme Court Petitions
Research surrounding how much influence the public has on the U.S. Supreme Court offers conflicting results. Some scholars argue that because the Court is politically insulated it does not pay much
The Supply of Amicus Curiae Briefs in the Market for Information at the U.S. Supreme Court
We argue that the Supreme Court's expressed and latent demand for information on the availability and implications of legal policy alternatives will affect the supply of information provided to the
Setting the Agenda of the United States Supreme Court? Organized Interests and the Decision to File an Amicus Curiae Brief at Cert
Past research indicates that amicus briefs influence the Supreme Court's decision to issue a writ of certiorari; however, we know relatively little about the reasons that lead interest groups to file
Counterbalancing the disadvantages of the “Have Nots”: an examination of the impact of amicus participation in state supreme court cases
Party capability theory posits that litigation success is predicated on litigants’ experience as parties to lawsuits as well as their access to resources. The stakes are particularly high for


Lobbyists before the U.S. Supreme Court
Despite the fact that amicus curiae participation is the most common method of interest group activity in the judicial arena, there is little consensus as to whether this means of participation
Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court
Participation as amicus curiae has long been an important tactic of organized interests in litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court. We analyze amicus curiae briefs filed before the decision on
Organized Interests and the Decision of Whom to Lobby in Congress
In a departure from previous research, we focus on the dyadic relationship between lobbyists and committee members in the House of Representatives in order to test hypotheses about what factors shape
The Supreme Court Bar: Legal Elites in the Washington Community
Who represents litigants in the Supreme Court of the United States? Kevin T. McGuire shows that the most sophisticated of them have the advantage of representation by an elite counsel made up of
Interest-Group Litigation in Federal District Court: Beyond the Political Disadvantage Theory
  • S. Olson
  • Law, Political Science
    The Journal of Politics
  • 1990
In contrast to earlier research emphasizing litigation as a strategy for groups unable to succeed in other political arenas, this article proposes that the use of litigation is more generally a
Interest Group Competition on Federal Agency Rules
In the lobbying literature, the effects of competition—two or more interests lobbying on opposing sides of a policy debate—have not been assessed with regard to government agency policymaking.
The Role of Legislators in the Determination of Interest Group Influence
In addition to structuring the rules governing legislator-lobbyist interactions, legislators also affect their interactions with lobbyists by promoting lobbying enterprises, which are groups of
Inviting friends to lobby: Interest groups, ideological bias, and congressional committees
Theory: A debate in the American politics literature on lobbying is over whom interest groups tend to lobby, legislative friends, enemies, or so-called "undecideds" (fence-sitters). I connect that
Competitive Lobbying and Supermajorities in a Majority-Rule Institution
This paper presents a complete information model of competitive lobbying in a majority-rule institution where lobbying consists of providing politically-valuable resources to legislators. Legislators
Competitive lobbying for a legislator’s vote: A comment
Abstract. This comment deals with some imperfections of the analysis presented by Austen-Smith and Wright [1]. It is argued that in [1] being informed is incorrectly identified with being