@article{gunderson_kim_lane_bauer_davis_searles_2025, title={Candidate Gender, Campaign Appeals, and Voter Support in Judicial Elections}, volume={1}, ISSN={["1468-2508"]}, DOI={10.1086/730721}, journal={JOURNAL OF POLITICS}, author={Gunderson, Anna and Kim, Jeong and Lane, Elizabeth and Bauer, Nichole and Davis, Belinda and Searles, Kathleen}, year={2025}, month={Jan} }
 @article{armaly_krewson_lane_2024, title={The Influence of Descriptive Representation on Support for Judicial Nominees and the US Supreme Court}, volume={8}, ISSN={["1573-6687"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-024-09966-2}, DOI={10.1007/s11109-024-09966-2}, abstractNote={Abstract We argue that characteristics of unelected officials directly influence individuals’ perceptions and evaluations of them. These evaluations then have indirect, downstream consequences on evaluations of the institution. To test this, we fielded a unique survey with an oversample of Black Americans after the nomination of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. Using a conjoint experimental design to randomize nominee race, we find that increased racial descriptive representation elicits more favorable views of the nominee and Court among Black respondents. Causal mediation analysis confirms our theoretical expectation that descriptive representation indirectly influences views of the Court through its effects on views of nominees. The effects we uncover are not confined to co-partisan nominees, indicating that descriptive representation may matter for more than policy reasons alone. Finally, our external validity test suggests these effects generalize beyond our experimental setting, with Black (but not white) respondents equally as supportive of an anonymous profile matching Justice Jackson’s characteristics as they are of Jackson herself.}, journal={POLITICAL BEHAVIOR}, author={Armaly, Miles T. and Krewson, Christopher N. and Lane, Elizabeth A.}, year={2024}, month={Aug} }
 @article{lane_widner_2024, title={“Excuse me –” Race and Intersectionality of Interruptions at the U.S. Supreme Court}, url={https://doi.org/10.33774/apsa-2024-shnp5}, DOI={10.33774/apsa-2024-shnp5}, abstractNote={Racial and gender bias pervade American political institutions, and the Supreme Court is no exception. Women lawyers are interrupted more and allowed to speak for less time than their male colleagues. We expect that stereotypes will also lead to biased treatment of attorneys of color, and will have the greatest impact on women attorneys of color due to their intersectional identity. In doing so, we introduce a refined measure of interruptions that more precisely captures oral argument dynamics. Using a database of the race of members of the Supreme Court bar and transcripts of all oral arguments held from October Terms 2009 – 2018, we find that women attorneys of color receive harsher treatment by the justices during oral arguments than their peers. We also find that when the case involves racial issues, attorneys of color are interrupted less than their white counterparts.}, author={Lane, Elizabeth and Widner, Kirsten}, year={2024}, month={Feb} }
 @misc{lane_2023, title={Persuading the Supreme Court: The Significance of Briefs in Judicial Decision Making. By Morgan L. W. Hazelton and Rachael K. Hinkle. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 2022. 275p. $32.95 paper.}, volume={21}, ISSN={1537-5927 1541-0986}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592723000476}, DOI={10.1017/S1537592723000476}, abstractNote={Persuading the Supreme Court: The Significance of Briefs in Judicial Decision Making. By Morgan L. W. Hazelton and Rachael K. Hinkle. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 2022. 275p. $32.95 paper. - Volume 21 Issue 2}, number={2}, journal={Perspectives on Politics}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Lane, Elizabeth A.}, year={2023}, month={Jun}, pages={738–740} }
 @article{kim_gunderson_lane_bauer_2023, title={State Courts, State Legislatures, and Setting Abortion Policy}, volume={48}, ISSN={0361-6878 1527-1927}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10449887}, DOI={10.1215/03616878-10449887}, abstractNote={On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court decided in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization (597 U.S. (2022)) to overturn the constitutional right to abortion, a seismic shift in abortion policy that makes the states key battlegrounds in fights over abortion and broader reproductive rights. This article focuses on the role of state supreme courts in setting state abortion policies. Using an original data set of state court decisions surrounding abortion from the past 20 years, the authors investigate how two overarching factors affect state supreme court decision-making on abortion. First, they track how states' political environments affect the decisions courts make about access to abortion. Second, the authors consider the scope of the abortion policy considered by the courts. The authors find that the partisan makeup of state legislatures does not influence the direction of state supreme courts' rulings on abortion issues, but it does affect the scope of abortion regulation being considered by the courts. Additionally, they find that elected judges tend to be more responsive to constituent preferences when ruling on abortion policies. Overall, these findings illustrate the multifaceted dynamics involved in state supreme courts' rulings on abortion.}, number={4}, journal={Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law}, publisher={Duke University Press}, author={Kim, Jeong Hyun and Gunderson, Anna and Lane, Elizabeth A. and Bauer, Nichole M.}, year={2023}, month={Jan}, pages={569–592} }
 @article{lane_2022, title={A Separation-of-Powers Approach to the Supreme Court’s Shrinking Caseload}, volume={10}, ISSN={2164-6570 2164-6589}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/714086}, DOI={10.1086/714086}, abstractNote={Abstract Since the end of the 1980s the Supreme Court has cut its caseload nearly in half. While this decrease has not gone unnoticed, researchers have largely focused their explanations on institutional factors, such as changes in personnel, creation of the certiorari pool, or an increase in the amount of discretion justices have to set their agenda. Most existing work fails to consider how the preferences of members of Congress and the president also contribute to this staggering decrease. I provide the first systematic examination of how extrainstitutional influences affect the size of the Court’s caseload. I examine the 1951–2016 terms of the Court to reveal that a constraining political environment significantly reduces the number of cases the justices agree to hear each term. These results suggest that the justices consider the preferences of actors in the other branches of government much earlier than their decisions on the merits.}, number={1}, journal={Journal of Law and Courts}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Lane, Elizabeth A.}, year={2022}, pages={1–12} }
 @article{armaly_lane_2022, title={Politicized Battles: How Vacancies and Partisanship Influence Support for the Supreme Court}, volume={51}, ISSN={1532-673X 1552-3373}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673x211064299}, DOI={10.1177/1532673X211064299}, abstractNote={Supreme Court vacancies are now characterized by great partisan efforts to confirm—or impede—the nomination. Amid a politicized vacancy before the 2020 election, there was cause to question the conclusion that these vacancies do not harm the judiciary in the public’s eyes. We utilize panel data collected before and after Justice Ginsburg’s death to investigate the effects of the vacancy and partisan posturing to fill it. We find that the battle over the vacancy yielded decreases in diffuse support among Democrats, particularly among those who read a story about Senate Republicans’ willingness to fill an election-year vacancy after refusing to in 2016. Support for federal judicial elections decreased across survey waves, but only among certain subsets of respondents. Finally, belief that one’s preferred 2020 candidate would nominate the next justice significantly influenced support for curbing. Elected branch politics appear capable of influencing the mass public’s level of support for the Court.}, number={1}, journal={American Politics Research}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Armaly, Miles T. and Lane, Elizabeth A.}, year={2022}, month={Mar}, pages={23–36} }
 @inbook{lane_schoenherr_schutte_black_2020, edition={1st}, title={Judicial Discretion and US Supreme Court Agenda Setting}, booktitle={Open Judicial Politics}, publisher={Oregon State University Open Textbook Initiative}, author={Lane, Elizabeth A. and Schoenherr, Jessica A. and Schutte, Rachel A. and Black, Ryan C.}, editor={Diascro, Jennifer Segal and Solberg, Rorie L. and Waltenburg, Eric N.Editors}, year={2020} }
 @misc{lane_2020, title={Review of The President and the Supreme Court: Going Public on Judicial Decisions from Washington to Trump by Paul M}, volume={30}, url={http://www.lpbr.net/2020/10/the-president-and-supreme-court-going.html}, number={9}, journal={Law and Politics Book Review}, author={Lane, Elizabeth A.}, year={2020}, month={Oct}, pages={141–148} }
 @article{schoenherr_lane_armaly_2020, title={The Purpose of Senatorial Grandstanding during Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings}, volume={8}, ISSN={2164-6570 2164-6589}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/709913}, DOI={10.1086/709913}, abstractNote={Abstract US Supreme Court confirmation hearings provide senators with an opportunity to engage a potential justice on a nationwide stage. Senators probe for information about future behavior on the bench. Nominees work through the questions, oscillating between forthcoming and vague responses. Such behavior encourages popular narratives that characterize this intricate dance as a “vapid and hollow charade.” We challenge this wisdom and argue that senators use these hearings to provide meaningful representation to their constituents while simultaneously supporting copartisan efforts regarding the nominee. We examine the exchanges in 185 senator-nominee pairings that span nearly 30 years of confirmation hearings. Our results show that senators from both parties increase their question-asking activity during divided government, when confirmation success is more dubious. Senators from the president’s party ask fewer questions when their constituents support the nominee, however, suggesting that popular support can attenuate this general effect for senators expecting a successful confirmation.}, number={2}, journal={Journal of Law and Courts}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Schoenherr, Jessica A. and Lane, Elizabeth A. and Armaly, Miles T.}, year={2020}, pages={333–358} }
 @book{lane_schoenherr_2019, title={'A Matter of Great Importance’: Senator Preparation for Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings}, number={1}, institution={Arlen Specter Center for Public Service Research Fellowship. Thomas Jefferson University}, author={Lane, Elizabeth A. and Schoenherr, Jessica A.}, year={2019} }
 @inbook{lane_black_2017, title={Agenda Setting and Case Selection on the U.S. Supreme Court}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.91}, DOI={10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.91}, abstractNote={The Supreme Court’s docket consists of thousands of cases each term, with petitioners hoping at least four justices will be compelled to grant review to their case. The decision to move a case from their docket to their calendar for oral arguments and all intermediate steps is what is known as the agenda-setting process. This is a fundamental step in the judicial process, as the Supreme Court cannot establish precedent and affect policy change without first deciding to review.}, booktitle={Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics}, publisher={Oxford University Press}, author={Lane, Elizabeth A. and Black, Ryan C.}, year={2017}, month={Dec} }