The Haves and Have-Nots in the Era of Trump Judges

• In Event: Interest Groups and Judicial Politics

Abstract

Political disadvantage theory suggested that courts can help equalize political representation between groups with resources (the ``have'') and groups without (the ``have-nots''). One of the ways this equalization can happen is through the filing of amicus briefs at the Supreme Court, in which marginalized groups attempt to convince the courts to level the playing field in their policy area. In this project, we examine how political disadvantage theory is affected by who is on the court. Specifically, former President Donald Trump appointed over 200 conservative judges to the federal courts, including 3 Supreme Court Justices. Do marginalized groups still turn to the courts in this environment? Who is represented at the court and whose viewpoints prevail? We investigate these questions in the unique Trump era from 2016 to 2020 and consider amicus briefs filed in this time period, alongside whether interest groups viewed the courts as less welcoming with the influx of Trump judges. This paper provides an extension of past studies of representation and disadvantage in the courts, and highlights how these effects may be mediated by perceptions of and behavior by the judiciary.

Authors

• Kirsten Widner, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

• Anna M Gunderson, Louisiana State University