Letter from the Editor

Welcome to the second issue of Volume 41 for the Justice System Journal. JSJ is published under an arrangement between the National Center for State Courts and Routledge (Taylor & Francis). The Journal’s commitment is to providing an outlet for innovative, social scientific research on the myriad of issues that pertain to the third branch of government. Information about JSJ, including the Journal’s Aims & Scopes as well as instructions for manuscript submissions, can be found at our website: http://www.tandfonline.com/ujsj. Manuscript submissions are processed solely online through the ScholarOne system, and the direct link to submit a manuscript is http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ujsj. We begin this issue with a pair of studies that seek to better understand parties’ goals in appealing to and arguing in front of the US Supreme Court. Our first article is by Claire B. Wofford of the College of Charleston, entitled “Why Try? Comparing the Aims of Parties and Amici in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation.” Wofford tackles this question by positing that named parties to a case are primarily concerned with winning while amici seek to influence the broader legal policy the Court announces. Wofford argues that a focus on winning will actually mean proposing multiple legal options for the Court to choose from in a brief, as opposed to focusing on just one; conversely, a focus on a single legal rule emphasizes the desirability of that particular policy outcome. Wofford’s findings confirm these findings generally, but also reveal that interest groups are much more focused on winning, and not simply the adoption of particular legal rules, than conventional wisdom suggests. Andrew H. Smith’s (University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley) contribution to this broader debate delves into the decision to appeal to the Supreme Court given the high costs and low probability of acceptance. In “The Effect of Ideology and Resource Advantages on Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Smith argues and finds that trends over time support the notion that increased resource gaps between litigants leads to fewer appeals, though it’s unclear whether this is more due to a lack of resources for disadvantaged litigants or due to strategic behavior by advantaged litigants seeking to avoid the creation of nationwide precedent. Smith also finds mixed support for the idea that appeals decisions reflect a greater circuit-Supreme Court ideological divide. Read in tandem with Wofford’s argument, both these pieces raise important questions for future research about litigant goals and calculations, and also how these goals and calculations may differ across time, and types of litigants. Our third research article focuses on “Judicial Nominations to the Courts of Appeals and the Strategic Decision to Elevate.” Mikel Norris (Coastal Caroline University) argues presidents choose nominees with an eye toward the likelihood of a contentious confirmation battle. When such battles are more likely, presidents will strategically choose to elevate less extreme sitting district court judges to try and forestall opposition. The potential prize? The ability to nominate a new district court judge more reflective of their preferred preferences. The implication of Norris’s article is that presidents engage in a multi-year, long-term strategy when filling vacancies on the federal bench. Our final article is a Special Report produced by Brian J. Ostrom and Jordan Bowman of the National Center for State Courts summarizing their field evaluation of holistic defense practices in practice as part of a project funded by the National Institutes of Justice. Based on an examination of three public defender offices, they highlight a number of benefits, as well as a number of