A Level Politics - Pressure Groups- Methods and tactics used by pressure groups to influence decision-making - Court System

A Level Politics - Pressure Groups- Methods and tactics used by pressure groups to influence decision-making - Court System
This guide summarizes how pressure groups utilize the US court system to achieve their goals, focusing on legal challenges and amicus curiae briefs.
I. Legal Challenges: A Powerful Tool
Pressure groups strategically leverage the court system, particularly the Supreme Court, to influence legal interpretations and policy. This involves:

• Targeting specific legal points: Groups identify laws needing change and support cases highlighting these issues. They pursue appeals to the Supreme Court, aiming for landmark rulings that fundamentally alter legal precedents.
• Examples of successful legal challenges:
  • NAACP: Funded Brown v. Board of Education (1954), ending "separate but equal" segregation.
  • ACLU: Brought Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
  • Planned Parenthood: Continuously challenges restrictions on abortion rights, notably in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and subsequent state-level cases.
• Challenging Executive Actions: Groups like the ACLU actively challenge executive branch actions in court. Examples include challenges to Trump's travel ban and transgender military ban.

Key takeaway: Legal action is a potent pressure group method. Landmark rulings can achieve widespread policy changes.
II. Amicus Curiae Briefs: Influencing the Court's Decision-Making
Pressure groups, along with other entities, submit amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs to influence court decisions. These briefs provide evidence and arguments relevant to the case.

• "Green Briefs": Non-governmental amicus briefs, often from pressure groups, are printed in green and provide specific evidence or research to sway justices.
• Impact and Trend: While the exact influence is difficult to quantify, the number of briefs submitted has risen dramatically. Landmark cases see a particularly high number (e.g., Obergefell vs. Brown). Justices sometimes cite briefs in their opinions, demonstrating their influence.
• Example: American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019): Justice Ginsburg cited a Jewish War Veterans' amicus brief in her dissenting opinion. Justice Kavanaugh acknowledged the brief's perspective despite his majority vote against it.

III. Elitism and Accessibility in Amicus Brief Submissions
While amicus briefs offer a voice to various societal groups, concerns about elitism exist:

• Expertise Bias: Justices are more likely to cite briefs from legal experts, favoring established groups with resources and experience (e.g., ACLU, NACDL).
• Financial Barriers: Producing briefs is expensive, potentially excluding less-wealthy groups. While crowdfunding offers an alternative, it's not without issues (e.g., the Supreme Court rejected a brief due to anonymous donors).

Key takeaway: While amicus briefs expand participation, financial and expertise barriers limit accessibility, raising equity concerns.
Study Questions:

1. Explain the strategic advantages of using the court system as a pressure group tactic.
2. Compare and contrast the legal challenges pursued by the NAACP, ACLU, and Planned Parenthood.
3. Discuss the potential impact and limitations of amicus curiae briefs on Supreme Court decisions.
4. Analyze the elitist concerns surrounding amicus brief submissions and potential solutions to increase accessibility.
5. Evaluate the overall effectiveness of using the courts as a method of pressure group action, considering both its successes and limitations.

To learn more about A Level Politics Click Here