Supreme Court Agenda Setting: Policy Uncertainty and Legal Considerations: Ryan C. Black and Ryan J. Owens

2012 ◽  
pp. 162-184
Author(s):  
Jeffrey L. Yates ◽  
Scott Boddery

We examine existing empirical studies addressing the intersection of American courts and the Executive and explore multiple aspects of dynamics between these two primary branches of government. We assay the literature on the formal powers of the president and how courts have shaped and adjusted the legal authority and reach of the federal executive. We also investigate how presidents can influence American public policy through less direct pathways such as agenda-setting. However, one of the president’s most renowned powers is that of appointment—and we assess how presidents have helped shape the landscape of American law through the appointment of judicial actors and consider the politics of the federal judicial selection process. Finally, we address the president’s primary legal arm—the Solicitor General’s Office—and investigate the office’s influence on Supreme Court policy-making.


Author(s):  
Ryan J. Owens ◽  
James Sieja

Understanding the conditions under which the Supreme Court sets its agenda is crucial to understanding Supreme Court behavior. After all, before the justices make any decision on the merits of a case, they must first decide whether to hear it at all. This chapter analyzes Supreme Court agenda-setting. It begins by describing the process justices employ to select cases to review. It examines how parties file certiorari petitions, the certiorari pool used to provide guidance to the justices, and the conferences in which justices vote to grant or deny review to cert petitions. The chapter then discusses four explanations political scientists have provided to explain the conditions under which justices set the agenda. The article concludes by examining limitations of existing scholarship and providing suggestions for future scholarship.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document