Answering the call of the court: how justices and litigants set the Supreme Court agenda

The U.S. Supreme Court is the quintessential example of a court that expanded itsagenda into policy areas that were once reserved for legislatures.

Yet scholars know very littleabout what causes attention to various policy areas to ebb and flow on the Supreme Court'sagenda.

Vanessa A. Baird's Answering the Call of the Court: How Justices and Litigants Set theSupreme Court Agenda represents the first scholarly attempt to connect justices' priorities,litigants' strategies, and aggregate policy outputs of the U.S.

SupremeCourt. Most previous studies on the Supreme Court's agenda examine caseselection, but Baird demonstrates that the agenda-setting process begins long before justiceschoose which cases they will hear.

When justices signal their interest in a particular policy area,litigants respond by sponsoring well-crafted cases in those policy areas.

Approximately four tofive years later, the Supreme Court's agenda in those areas expands, with cases that arecomparatively more politically important and divisive than other cases the Court hears.

From issuesof discrimination and free expression to welfare policy, from immigration to economic regulation,strategic supporters of litigation pay attention to the goals of Supreme Court justices and bringcases they can use to achieve those goals.

Since policy making in courts isiterative, multiple well-crafted cases are needed for courts to make comprehensive policy.

Bairdargues that judicial policy-making power depends on the actions of policy entrepreneurs or otherlitigants who systematically respond to the priorities and preferences of Supreme Courtjustices.