The Rehnquist Court and Support of Federal Agencies

By Deen, Rebecca E.; Ignagni, Joseph et al. | Judicature, November/December 2005 | Go to article overview

The Rehnquist Court and Support of Federal Agencies


Deen, Rebecca E., Ignagni, Joseph, Meernik, James, Judicature


In cases involving federal agencies, critical factors in the Court's decisions include the type of outcome sought (liberal or conservative) and the attitudes of the justices vis a vis the arguments made.

Inter-branch relations are at the heart of our system of government. An important point of contact between the branches occurs when a federal agency is a party before the Supreme Court. Indeed, approximately onequarter of cases tied to the federal government involve federal agencies. This article analyzes this significant intersection of institutions. More specifically, it delves into the Rehnquist Court's decision making in federal agency cases.

Much has been written about the Rehnquist Court in areas such as federalism and its treatment of issues such as abortion, flag burning, affirmative action, and gay rights.1 However, the Court's treatment of federal agencies has engendered very little discussion. What has its decision making been in agency cases? How supportive has the Rehnquist Court been of the government's position? Does it matter which agency is before the Court, or which presidential administration is being represented? Has the Rehnquist Court been consistent over time or have there been two Rehnquist Courts?2 Is "deference" or "support" for the agencies simply a surrogate for the justices' ideology or policy preferences? These and other questions will be considered for the federal agency cases from 1986-2005.

The solicitor general, the Court, and agency cases

When the subject is the federal government before the Supreme Court, it is all but compulsory to discuss, at least briefly, the solicitor general. The solicitor general almost exclusively represents the executive branch and the federal government before the Supreme Court. It has long been accepted wisdom that the solicitor general enjoys special advantages and has "extraordinary influence" in his dealings with the Court.3 This has led to the solicitor general being dubbed the "Tenth Justice."4 A large part of this reputation is connected to the solicitor general's impressive ability to win cases on the merits and as an amicus curiae.5

The relatively high rate of success that the federal government enjoys before the Supreme Court may be related to both litigant status and being a "repeat player."6 The Court may view the solicitor general as a co-partner in the federal system and therefore shows deference. The solicitor general's experience, expertise, and resources could also result in the Supreme Court potentially paying special respect for the federal government as a party or amicus. The solicitor general is not only a repeat player, but is the ultimate repeat player. His office is connected to (as litigant or amicus), most of the Supreme Court's caseload.7 Lastly, the solicitor general's success rate may be due, at least in part, to choosing cases to appeal or file an amicus brief in which he is more likely to win.8

Connected with the solicitor general's unique relationship with the Court are special behavioral incentives. Since he regularly appears before the justices, the solicitor general has a greater than normal incentive to be fair to both sides of a case and for his information to be reliable, neutral, and non-political. If he and his office establish this type of reputation for professionalism, then he and those he represents could be given an elevated status as a reward.'1 The Court could also reward the solicitor general for playing the role of a "gatekeeper" and screening cases that he views as not being worthy of the Court's time.10 The solicitor general appeals only about 10 percent of the cases where the government lost in the lower courts." Possibly the Court is grateful and appreciative for receiving good or unbiased information, and for having more time because relatively few cases are appealed to the Court where the federal government would have likely lost.

Another reason why agencies might be successful is related to the legal model of Supreme Court decision making. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Rehnquist Court and Support of Federal Agencies
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.