Abstract
Whether the haves come out ahead of the nots in the judicial process is a topic of great interest for scholars of the judiciary. Although studies of lower courts have found that litigant status generally matters, research at the US Supreme Court is not of one voice, with conflicting results across several studies. Bringing a novel perspective to this debate, we analyze litigant status at the Supreme Court's agenda-setting stage. Using archival data from the articles of Justice Blackmun, we find that litigant status influences the Court's decision making but that the nature of the effect can be mitigated by the interplay between a justice's ideology and the presence of interest group support. (OT1phvlslJEL C00, K00, K40) The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Yale University. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org, Oxford University Press.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
