Do parties' briefs influence the content of Supreme Court opinions? The author contends that the parties, through the briefs submitted on the merits, have the ability to influence the content of opinions and, consequently, have the ability to influence the law. Utilizing plagiarism software, the author compares the parties' briefs with the majority opinion of the Court. The results indicate that there is a connection between the language of the parties' briefs and the language of the opinions, which means that parties have the potential to influence the law.
Bailey, Michael, Brian Kamoie, and Forrest Maltzman .2005. Signals from the tenth justice: The political role of the solicitor general in Supreme Court decision-making . American Journal of Political Science49:72-85.
2.
Benesh, Sara C., and Malia Reddick.2002. Overruled: An event history analysis of lower court reaction to Supreme Court alteration of precedent. Journal of Politics64 (2): 534-50.
3.
Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright .1988. Organized interests and agenda setting on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review82:1109-27.
4.
Collins, Paul M., Jr.2004. Friends of the Court: Examining the influence of amicus curiae participation in U.S. Supreme Court litigation . Law and Society Review38:807-32.
5.
Corley, Pamela C., Robert M. Howard, and David C. Nixon .2005. The Supreme Court and opinion content: The use of the Federalist Papers. Political Research Quarterly58:329-40.
6.
Eagley, Alice H., and Shelly Chaiken.1993. The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers .
7.
Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight.1998. The choices justices make. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
8.
Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey A. Segal .2000. Measuring issue salience . American Journal of Political Science44:66-83.
9.
Gates, John B., and Glenn A. Phelps .1996. Intentionalism in constitutional opinions. Political Research Quarterly49:245-61.
10.
Hansford, Thomas G., and James F. Spriggs II.2006. The politics of precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
Johnson, Timothy R., Paul J. Wahlbeck, and James F.Spriggs II2006. The influence of oral arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court . American Political Science Review100:99-113.
12.
Kassop, Nancy.1993. From arguments to Supreme Court opinions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. PS: Political Science and Politics26:53-58.
13.
Kearney, Joseph D., and Thomas W. Merrill .2000. The influence of amicus curiae briefs on the Supreme Court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review148:743-830.
14.
Knight, Jack, and Lee Epstein .1996. Norm of stare decisis. American Journal of Political Science40:1018-35.
15.
Lindquist, Stefanie A., and David E. Klein .2006. The influence of jurisprudential considerations on Supreme Court decisionmaking: A study of conflict cases . Law & Society Review40:135-62.
16.
Maltzman, Forrest, James F.Spriggs II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2000. Crafting law on the Supreme Court: The collegial game. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Manz, William H.2002. Citations in Supreme Court opinions and briefs: A comparative study. Law Library Journal94:267-95.
18.
McGuire, Kevin T.1993. Lawyers and the U.S. Supreme Court: The Washington community and legal elites. American Journal of Political Science37:365-90.
19.
---. 1995. Repeat players in the Supreme Court: The role of experienced lawyers in litigation success. Journal of Politics57:187-96.
20.
---. 1998. Explaining executive success in the U.S. Supreme Court . Political Research Quarterly51:505-26.
21.
Michel, Paul R.1998. Effective appellate advocacy. Litigation24:19-23.
22.
Neumann, Richard K., Jr.2001. Legal reasoning and legal writing: Structure, strategy, and style. New York: Aspen Law & Business.
23.
Palmer, Jan.1982. An econometric analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's certiorari decisions. Public Choice39:387-98.
24.
Phelps, Glenn, and John B. Gates .1991. The myth of jurisprudence: Interpretative theory in the constitutional opinions of Justices Rehnquist and Brennan. Santa Clara Law Review31:567-96.
25.
Posner, Richard A.2000. An economic analysis of the use of citations in the law . American Law and Economics Review2:381-406.
26.
Provine, Doris Marie.1980. Case selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
Rehnquist, William H.2001. The Supreme Court. New York: Knopf.
28.
Rohde, David, and Harold Spaeth.1976. Supreme Court decision making. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
29.
Rosen, Mark D.2005. Modeling constitutional doctrine. St. Louis University Law Journal49:691-707.
30.
Segal, Jeffrey A.1986. Supreme Court justices as human decision makers: An individual-level analysis of the search and seizure cases. Journal of Politics48:938-55.
31.
---. 1988. Amicus curiae briefs by the solicitor general during the Warren and Burger Courts: A research note. Western Political Quarterly41:135-44.
32.
---. 1990. Supreme Court support for the solicitor general: The effect of presidential appointments. Western Political Quarterly43:137-52.
33.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Albert D. Cover .1989. Ideological values and the votes of U.S. Supreme Court justices. American Political Science Review83:557-65.
34.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth .2002. The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Spaeth, Harold J.2006. The original United States Supreme Court database, 1953-2005 terms. http://www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/sctdata.htm
36.
Spriggs, James F., II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck.1997. Amicus curiae and the role of information at the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly50:365-86.
37.
United States v. Manuel Flores-Montano. 514 U.S. 149 (2004).
38.
Wahlbeck, Paul J.1997. The life of the law: Judicial politics and legal change . Journal of Politics59:778-802.
