The article, “An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures: The Call for Response and the Call for the Views of the Solicitor General”, appears in the George Mason Law Review. Here is Marcia Coyle’s coverage (thanks to Mike McBride for this):
Study shows influence of SG in high court cases granted cert
Marcia Coyle (article here, subscription required)
06-16-2009
So you’ve taken your client’s case all the way to the Supreme Court and the justices have asked the solicitor general of the United States whether they should grant review. What are your chances of a nod in your favor?
Not bad, according to an unusual study of two of the high court’s most important “information-gathering” tools — a call for the views of the solicitor general, known as a CVSG, and a call for a response, or CFR, to a petition for certiorari. The Court granted briefing on the merits in 34 percent of cases in which it called for the views of the solicitor general, a 37-time increase above the grant rate for all petitions. And, the justices follow the recommendation of the solicitor general to grant or deny a case roughly 80 percent of the time, according to the study.
David Thompson, currently a clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, and Melanie Wachtell, policy director for the nonprofit Tobin Project, are both Stanford Law graduates who participated in the law school’s Supreme Court clinic. “We decided we were interested in writing a paper, and we felt if we were going to embark on a long paper to be published in a legal journal, we wanted it to be something that really contributed,” recalled Wachtell.
Turtle Talk 