@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={Senator Claire McCaskill on sexual assault to her experiences both in college and in the military. Smith notes that Ernst, though “rated the second most conservative member of the Senate in 2019” (p. 112), proved willing to break with her party on issues of military readiness and well-being, as she did when she came out against the Trump administration’s ban on trans service members. The biographies of these four Congresswomen are eminently readable and informative, as is an additional chapter on the so-called “badasses” of the 116th Congress: three military veterans, Mikie Sherrill, Elaine Luria, and Chrissy Houlahan, and two former CIA agents, Elissa Slotkin and Abigail Spanberger. Smith evaluates all the women on their own terms—asking how they viewed their service in the military and Congress and how it fit within a larger tradition of “service above self.” The biographies are well-researched and will be of general interest to those interested in veterans, women, or women veterans as candidates and legislators. Smith addresses these women’s childhoods, military service, role models, entrances into politics, and congressional service, including the ways in which their military service impacts their legislative approaches and priorities. McSally’s class action lawsuit against the Pentagon for its policy requiring women serving in Saudi Arabia to wear the abaya is well known. Smith puts this lawsuit into the context of earlier suits filed by military women that expanded women’s career opportunities in the military, and McSally’s own congressional efforts to further gender equality in the U.S. military. Smith’s handling of the Congresswomen, while humanizing, is perhaps too diplomatic at times. Notably, Smith repeatedly highlights Gabbard’s stated commitment to treat all Americans with respect (p. 150), stresses the “internal consistency inGabbard’s ideology and principled approach to foreign policy” (p. 155), and emphasizes her commitment to the principle of “service above self”— Gabbard’s campaign motto (p. 151). Yet the evidence Smith presents, including Gabbard’s reference to fellow Representative Adam Schiff as a “domestic terrorist” and her inconsistent takes on foreign policy—if not Smith’s assessment of it—undermine this claim. Regardless, even when Smith pulls her punches in the analysis, she doesn’t shy away from presenting the candidates’ foibles, from Gabbard’s gaffes to McSally’s reversal on Trump to win her Arizona primary. The thread that binds this book together is the concept of a tradition of women who serve their country through both military or quasi-military service and congressional service. Smith presents the veteran Congresswomen of the post-Gulf War era as a continuation of a trend begun much earlier. U.S. women’s military and quasi-military service goes back to the Revolutionary War, in which Margaret Corbin and Mary Hayes took the places of their fallen husbands while many others served in support roles. Smith traces the roots of the current generation to veterans of the World Wars and subsequent eras, noting that women created the first veterans’ organization for women in 1921—codifying their identity as “servicewomen.” Smith identifies two cohorts of women. Ruth Bryan Owen, Edith Nourse Rogers, and Helen Douglas Mankin served in medical roles in the first World War before playing pivotal roles as Congresswomen in opening official military service to women. Smith’s second cohort consists of Margaret Chase Smith, who, while not serving in any quasi-military capacity, was nevertheless critical in expanding women’s military service while in Congress; and Mary Catherine Small Long, who served in the Women Accepted for Volunteer Military Service (WAVES) in World War II, but did not join Congress until 1985. Smith’s biographies of these earlier servicewomen in Congress are particularly valuable for the archival research that underpins them. This book is the first to attempt to understand what motivates the veteran women in Congress and how they got there—though it doesn’t address those whose campaigns fell short. Smith’s exploratory analysis builds on work that separately assesses women in Congress and veterans in Congress, notably Jeremy Teigen’s (2018) Why Veterans Run: Military Service in American Presidential Elections, 1789–2016, and Peter Feaver and Richard Kohn’s (2001) edited volume Soldiers and Citizens: The Civil-Military Gap and American National Security. Smith is breaking new ground here, and this book has a place on the shelf of anyone studying this new wave of veteran Congresswomen.}, 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={Abstract}, 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}, 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}, 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} }