Planned strategic litigation: A cross-institutional model for analysis of interest group coalition activity before the United States Supreme Court

Political science and policy scholarship has traditionally used single institutional frameworks for analyzing interest group advocacy behavior within political and legal institutions. A cross institutional framework challenges scholars to investigate such behavior as it impacts multiple institutions, across multiple levels of government. This study involves the use of planned strategic litigation among pro-abortion and anti-abortion activists in the formulation of state and federal abortion policy. Using nine United States Supreme Court cases from Missouri, Pennsylvania, and New York, the research investigates a cross institutional planned strategic litigation process; highlighting the pre-litigation, litigation, and post-litigation environments of the cases as they move from the state to national level through the federal judiciary.;Within an exploratory research design, mixed methodology are used to collect and analyze the data. Data was collected from multiple sources including: (a) 192 case briefs, (b) 27 federal court opinions, (c) 1172 amicus curiae statements of interest, and (d) court documents identifying 455 attorneys and their affiliations. An elite sample was also conducted. Forty-five individuals were identified for interviews. Of those, 25 gave access for interviews. The elite sample included Executive Directors of litigating and/or amicus organizations, former Executive Directors of litigating and/or amicus organizations, central administrative staff of litigating and/or amicus organizations, attorneys representing the organizations in litigation or as amicus, and select legislators and legislative staff. Research findings suggested the following: (a) a high level of repeat attorneys and organizations as primary litigators/litigants and amicus/amicus attorneys across the cases, (b) the cross institutional advocacy of some organizations across state and federal institutions, (c) the strategic development of statutory language at the state level which set precedent nationally via federal judicial challenges, and (d) differential coalition development within the pro and anti-abortion movements.