The Supreme Court as a policy arena: The strategies and tactics of state attorneys general

Presently, state governments are more active and more successful in the U.S. Supreme Court than at any time since the New Deal. These rates of activity and success are a function of two coincident forces-the emergence of the Republican Court and the increased capacity of the stares to pursue their policy goals aggressively before the High Bench. In this analysis, we seek to offer a better-defined portrait of the states' evolving advocacy in the Supreme Court. Using archival and survey data, we find that, as a group, the stares are more capable Supreme Court litigators, that their perceptions of the Republican Court have encouraged them to increase their pursuit of policy goals through litigation, and that they are "procedurally rational"-i.e., their estimates of success enter into their decisions to engage the Court.